Created attachment 640013 [details]
anaconda.log

Created attachment 640014 [details]
ifcfg.log

Created attachment 640015 [details]
packaging.log

Created attachment 640016 [details]
program.log

Created attachment 640017 [details]
RAID_dialog.png

Created attachment 640018 [details]
storage.log

Created attachment 640019 [details]
storage.state

Created attachment 640020 [details]
syslog

Hi,
Can we get any feedback from developers on this one? Thanks

"Instead of simple RAID levels, as it was in previous anaconda, it shows just some words."

RAID levels aren't actually simple, nor are they really all that standardized as you might think. I actually talked to a handful of storage experts and admins about RAID levels when we initially went through the design process for this part of the screen. Off the cuff, they all had confusion about what exactly some of the RAID level numbers meant and some even argued about it.

What you call 'just some words' are actually descriptions of the features each RAID level provides. As you click on various RAID level options (as available given your number of disks and available capacity) there is a label in the box that updates to let you know the current RAID level you're selected, in the RAID # format ("common terminology").

Certainly I don't think folks should have to look up documentation on which RAID level means what, to decode it in order to take advantage of the features we offer. On the other hand, we don't want to make it inconvenient for folks who have been instructed or know which RAID level they need to be able to achieve that. So adding in the label that changes/updates as you check off different options to let you know your current RAID level was a compromise we'd come up with with anticipating the latter use case.

Hope this helps explain the design change.

I'm going to close this since it's as designed, hope that's okay.

(In reply to comment #10)
> "Instead of simple RAID levels, as it was in previous anaconda, it shows
> just some words."
> 
> RAID levels aren't actually simple, nor are they really all that
> standardized as you might think. I actually talked to a handful of storage
> experts and admins about RAID levels when we initially went through the
> design process for this part of the screen. Off the cuff, they all had
> confusion about what exactly some of the RAID level numbers meant and some
> even argued about it.

I do not believe those could storage experts or admins. *Each* admin knows exactly what RAID1, RAID5, etc. means (better to say, each admin knows what RAID levels he wants to use stands for).

*Everybody* who wants raid knows _very_well_ that he know RAID10 for example.

If I look at the current new dialog, I really _do_not_know_ what should I choose to setup RAID10. I don't even know what RAID levels are supported/available!
 
> What you call 'just some words' are actually descriptions of the features
> each RAID level provides. As you click on various RAID level options (as
> available given your number of disks and available capacity) there is a
> label in the box that updates to let you know the current RAID level you're
> selected, in the RAID # format ("common terminology").

Term 'redundancy' is used two times for two different check boxes. This is far away of easily understandable.

According to error detection checkbox, actually all RAID levels (except of RAID0, actually many admins exclude RAID0 from RAID at all as it does not meet basic requirement of RAID, the redundancy) provide redundancy *and* error detection, even duplication of data (mirror in terminology of RAID) is well known error detection mechanism.

Please show me some product which is using same/similar approach and naming to build a RAID array. I have never seen this "common terminology" in action.

> Certainly I don't think folks should have to look up documentation on which
> RAID level means what, to decode it in order to take advantage of the
> features we offer.

Right. Martin has proposed to put there RAID level code name _and_ its description.

> On the other hand, we don't want to make it inconvenient
> for folks who have been instructed or know which RAID level they need to be
> able to achieve that.

Unfortunately, it happened.

> So adding in the label that changes/updates as you
> check off different options to let you know your current RAID level was a
> compromise we'd come up with with anticipating the latter use case.

This is like a game to solve the quest and find the way how to achieve desired result. Unfortunately unpleasant game.

Hope this helps explain concerns.

Hi Marian,

"If I look at the current new dialog, I really _do_not_know_ what should I choose to setup RAID10. I don't even know what RAID levels are supported/available!"

If you know what RAID10 means, then you know very well that the 0 is for striped and the 1 is for mirror. So RAID10 = mirror + striped. Do you know why you want to mirror your data? You want to mirror your data so you have an extra copy in case one piece of hardware fails - you want to mirror it so that it's redundant. So check off 'redundancy.' Do you know why you want to stripe your data? You want to stripe your data so you get better performance / more efficient seek & write times. So you check off 'Optimized Performance.' 

And if you are not sure these two checks give you RAID10, you can glance at the screen to the right of the checkboxes and confirm that it is indeed RAID10.

I cannot imagine not understanding RAID at a deep enough level to understand why you actually want to use a particular level and struggling with how the UI is designed right now, except maybe in the case of some kind of translation error. If there is an issue with the translation you are interacting with, let's open a bug and fix it. 

"This is like a game to solve the quest and find the way how to achieve desired result. Unfortunately unpleasant game."

You know what would be cool? It'd be cool if folks like you reopening bugs like this could show just a modicum of respect for the folks who have worked very hard over the past 2 years to make this redesign a reality. I'm sorry that it isn't exactly what YOU want. We're pretty sure that we've expanded the usability of the installer such that a wider breadth of people can use it and take advantage of the free software tech we work on. We are planning a usability study for after Fedora 18 comes out, right now, and we will be studying things like this RAID interface to see objectively whether or not there is a problem to be addressed.

I am closing this bug, but we may revisit this decision after we have data.

I won't reopen the bug as there is no will to consider my concerns, :'( however I have to reply.

(In reply to comment #13)
> Hi Marian,
> 
> "If I look at the current new dialog, I really _do_not_know_ what should I
> choose to setup RAID10. I don't even know what RAID levels are
> supported/available!"
> 
> If you know what RAID10 means, then you know very well that the 0 is for
> striped and the 1 is for mirror. So RAID10 = mirror + striped. Do you know
> why you want to mirror your data? You want to mirror your data so you have
> an extra copy in case one piece of hardware fails - you want to mirror it so
> that it's redundant. So check off 'redundancy.' Do you know why you want to
> stripe your data? You want to stripe your data so you get better performance
> / more efficient seek & write times. So you check off 'Optimized
> Performance.'

Please do not tell me what I know or how I think. Try to accept my opinion.

> I cannot imagine not understanding RAID at a deep enough level to understand
> why you actually want to use a particular level and struggling with how the
> UI is designed right now, except maybe in the case of some kind of
> translation error. If there is an issue with the translation you are
> interacting with, let's open a bug and fix it.

I already told you. Typical admin knows: RAID5 consists of at least 3 disks, capacity is N-1 and there is write performance penalty. From my experience this is how people think about RAID arrays. This can not be mapped to dialog in new interface.

> "This is like a game to solve the quest and find the way how to achieve
> desired result. Unfortunately unpleasant game."
> 
> You know what would be cool? It'd be cool if folks like you reopening bugs
> like this could show just a modicum of respect for the folks who have worked
> very hard over the past 2 years to make this redesign a reality.

I have no objection against work what was done. I want to make the result even better! Therefore I participate and share my ideas!

You know what would be cool? It'd be cool if folks like you closing bugs like this could show just a modicum of respect to the folks who expressed their concern based on experience.

> I'm sorry
> that it isn't exactly what YOU want.

MY voice does not count? Why? Because I have little bit different opinion? Is it enough? I stated few problematic items I can see here:

 * multiple usage of term redundancy/redundant for few checkboxes.
 * error detection is feature of all RAIDs but RAID0, levels can't be differentiated
 * concern that 'common terminology' used in anaconda is not used anywhere else.

All that was thrown out of the window (no response to anyone of that).
This does not look like exemplary case of cooperation or respect to other point of view. :'( I am very unhappy with your reply and it really does not motivate me on further participation. You picked up just few "problematic" phrases and commented on them. Real concerns were totally ignored by you.

You need to calm down. If you want to take this discussion up off bugzilla I recommend you participate on the anaconda-devel list.

To address the concerns you specifically wanted explicit addressing:

> * multiple usage of term redundancy/redundant for few checkboxes.

The term 'Redundancy' is used once on the RAID configuration screen, I'm looking at the screen now. It is used once, not multiple times. If that isn't what you meant, please clarify.

> * error detection is feature of all RAIDs but RAID0, levels can't be 
> differentiated

This is incorrect, Marian. Neither RAID0 or RAID1 have error detection. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RAID#Standard_levels

> * concern that 'common terminology' used in anaconda is not used anywhere else.

If you read comment #10 again, you will see I wrote the following:

in the RAID # format ("common terminology").

I was referring to the RAID # format (RAID ), RAID 5, RAID10, etc) as the "common terminology" as that was what Martin called it in comment #0. 

If you are confused about what I meant by saying something, you can ask rather than make accusations or assumptions. We're all reasonable people here who simply want to make free software better.

(In reply to comment #13)
> You know what would be cool? It'd be cool if folks like you reopening bugs
> like this could show just a modicum of respect for the folks who have worked
> very hard over the past 2 years to make this redesign a reality. I'm sorry

I believe that if there was 2 years of hard work on redesign there had
to be usability testing executed. Could you please share some data
about it?

And guys please stay excellent and avoid argumentation fauls.

I would also like to voice my concern about this. Personally, I would prefer Anaconda to let me choose precisely the RAID level I want without playing a mini quiz game.

My opinion is that people who want RAID already know the levels and this will just confuse and irritate them.

That said I do see value in this because it's much harder to confuse the levels. What about having a combobox that would react to changes in the "quiz" but also allow the user to select the RAID level manually (which would in turn change the quiz to reflect)?

"I believe that if there was 2 years of hard work on redesign there had
to be usability testing executed."

Sadly we've only had usability testable versions available since F18 beta; we did informal user discussions etc. throughout the entire design process (you can see the discussion in my blog comments and on the development list - we also posted paper prototypes in Westford and I believe in Brno as well for feedback, you can see the comments here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Anaconda/UX_Redesign/Design_Comments_1). We've made changes to the design as we went along based on those 3 sources of feedback; As mentioned earlier we are planning a full-fledged, formal usability test after F18 final comes out.

Formal usability testing wouldn't have been possible earlier because there wasn't enough working code to test.

"My opinion is that people who want RAID already know the levels and this will just confuse and irritate them."

An opinion is an opinion, right? :) This is why we're going to be doing testing.

"That said I do see value in this because it's much harder to confuse the levels. What about having a combobox that would react to changes in the "quiz" but also allow the user to select the RAID level manually (which would in turn change the quiz to reflect)?"

I think this is a promising potential solution we should look into.

For a lot of people who set up RAID, they already *know* what type of RAID they want to use. If I want RAID5, I really really want to be able to select "RAID5" from a list. Any other verbiage, however helpful it might be for the type of person who isn't likely to be using RAID in the first place, is superfluous. And I see that other verbiage *instead* of the simple label saying what I'm choosing (as opposed to seeing it next to the proper label) then it's actively detrimental to my use of the system. So *please* make sure the actual name of the RAID level is there for me to choose what I want directly.

I had to pick someone up the other day and give them a lift, when they'd never seen my car before... if I'd been following the example here, perhaps I should have explained to them what I use my car for and why I chose it, instead of just saying its make and model?

Also, please do *not* prevent me from making install choices just because you don't think they make sense. For example, I have done RAID1 installs to a single disk in the past, because I know I'm going to be installing a new disk in the near future and I want to be able to add that new disk to the RAID easily. It *isn't* an invalid choice.

Put up a warning message if you want to, but please don't police my choices in ways that aren't necessary. That *reduces* usability; it doesn't improve it.

This bug is witness to a classic clash of target audience.

(In reply to comment #10)

> Certainly I don't think folks should have to look up documentation on which
> RAID level means what, to decode it in order to take advantage of the
> features we offer.

I would say "folks playing with RAID options should know what RAID options mean, either without looking them up, or by looking them up". It's not an installer's purpose to educate users about RAID levels in general. (RAID levels exists outside of Fedora.) With this I would target experienced users.

The goal stated in comment 10 is perfectly valid, just the polar opposite of what experienced users and sysadmins want. Users new to RAID levels (might) want simplicity and human readable language; when you're buying into something new, you don't want tech jargon, you're approaching it from higher level notions. OTOH sysadmins know the details already and want control and technical terms. You don't sell cars to family drivers and enthusiasts with the same sales pitch.

I agree that this BZ should be closed as NOTABUG (= works as designed), but perhaps with the note that the dialog in question has simply not been designed, as first priority, for a group that favors control and technical terms.

(This comment expresses my humble personal opinion.)

The checkbox "quiz" approach was replaced by a combobox/dropdown in anaconda-19.2-1.