[maemo-developers] Screenshots to user installable GUI packages in extras-testing [was Re: External Repository and HAM]

[From: Graham Cobb]

On Monday 08 March 2010 19:17:38 Attila Csipa wrote:
> On Monday 08 March 2010 18:43:02 Graham Cobb wrote:
> > I strongly disagree.  The Extras-Testing process should be about safety:
> > someone browsing extras should be comfortable that if they look at an app
> > they can get a reasonable description, they can install it without
> > endangering their device, they can remove it if they don't like it.  It
> > is not about the quality of the app itself: its usability, its GUI, how
> > well
>
> The testing process is not *just* about safety. It's quality assurance, and
> there is a lot more to quality than just safety. 

I disagree.  I am not interested in using the extras-testing process to 
improve quality.  I am interested in using it to make sure users can 
confidently download apps without worrying that they will mess up their 
device permanently.

This was the decision made, by the community, when the Extras-Testing process 
was set up.  It was for a very short list of requirements which were to 
provide safety and was, explicitly, not a QA process.  If some people wish to 
change that then the discussion needs to be taken to the -community list as 
that is the only way such a decision can be changed.  Until then, any 
requirements beyond the list originally agreed should not be being used and 
any votes which reference them are invalid and should be removed.

There are very good reasons, not just "laziness", for NOT making the testing 
process a QA process.

The main reason is that the whole community suffer if developers (even poor 
developers, with poor apps) are forced into other repositories (see my long 
email about multiple repositories).  For that reason, I want a home which is 
large enough and diverse enough to be able to hold all apps, even poor 
quality ones.  On the other hand, it can't be the wild west: users must be 
kept safe and Nokia need to have the confidence to be able to enable the 
repository.

If apps are disallowed because of quality issues then there will be another 
home created for those (let's call it "Open Extras" or something).  That home 
will (as part of a backlash) have no quality standards at all (it will be on 
trust, as has already been suggested here today).  On the other hand, it will 
become popular with developers (why bother with the QA process at all if you 
are confident in your own skills?) and will gradually end up as the default 
place for all the interesting apps and everyone will enable it.  One week 
later they have all broken their devices and are calling Nokia for support!

The way to improve quality is not to have rules about it.  The way is to 
encourage: by all means point out poor quality, submit bug reports for poor 
quality, and give advice and help to developers about quality, including 
guidelines.  Even give extra benefits to high quality apps (maybe a separate 
listing on the downloads page, or maybe Nokia can give free devices to 
developers who score particularly high in a QA review).  But no app should be 
disallowed for a quality issue which is not a safety issue.

Ultimately, poor quality apps will be badly rated by users and will drop to 
the bottom of the lists.  Developers will either work to improve the quality 
or will just give up.  Either way, users are unlikely to be inconvenienced.  
And at least we will know that when an occasional user does install one of 
these crappy apps they will not break their system.

> For instance, we already 
> handle bad or missing icons as blockers (and I believe we will agree icons
> and screenshots aren't that far in regard to safety).

Missing icons are blockers (along with decent descriptions) because they are 
part of the requirement that people who are using HAM can see what they are 
downloading before they do it.  Screenshots have nothing to do with that -- 
they are part of the selling/rating process on the website.  Apps without 
screenshots will just end up poorly rated, which is fine.

I am not sure what a "bad icon" is supposed to be.

Graham