Re: Improve UX of YUM/DNF download form

Here's another updated patch:

- Don't use an id of "script"
- Add a button to the top-right of the script area to copy the contents to
the clipboard. Once clicked, the label changes for 3 seconds to indicate to
the user that the action occurred.

If folks are happy with this, once a consensus is made on the issue of
whether to include the client install separately, I'll update if needed and
push.

On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 9:37 AM Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:57 PM Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 5:24 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 6/8/20 11:23 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 4:14 PM Jonathan S. Katz <jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>> > <mailto:jkatz(at)postgresql(dot)org>> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > On 6/8/20 10:55 AM, Dave Page wrote:
>>> > > Here's an updated patch with the changes suggested below, as
>>> well as
>>> > > similar simplification for the Debian/Ubuntu pages.
>>> >
>>> > Overall LGTM. Given it's in a "<pre>" block, would we be able to
>>> use
>>> > newlines (\n) instead of "<br />"? I'd like to avoid introducing
>>> more
>>> > <br /> if possible, but if that's the way it goes, so be it.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yes, yes we can. Fixed in my tree, along with the pre-existing ones.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Certainly a nice improvement. Thanks!
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > Yw :-)
>>>
>>> Awesome. If said fixes do work, then I'm a +1 for adding it.
>>>
>>
>> +1 in general. The one thing about the implementation that irks me a bit
>> is that you picked id=script, because when I read it my mind just
>> automatically thinks <script>. But that's not a big thing :)
>>
>
> I can change that.
>
>
>>
>> If you want to make it even more fancy, add a button that copies it to
>> the clipboard and does so without including the comments?
>>
>
> Yeah, I mentioned that in my first message as a future improvement. Baby
> steps.
>
>
>>
>> I wonder if it would make sense to still keep the client and server
>> setups in separate boxes, so you can easily just select "all for client"?
>> That is, one step that does reporpm + client, and a separate step that has
>> all the stuff for server?
>>
>> Or if we think that's too complicated, then I suggest we just zap the
>> part about the server being optional and merge it all into a single set,
>> where you dnf/yum install both server and client at the same time. Having a
>> comment in a copy/paste script that says "the rest is optional" just feels
>> weird when the whole point of the exercise is to make it more easy to
>> copy/paste.
>>
>
> Yeah, that crossed my mind as well. The primary audience for this is the
> first time user, and they're likely going to want to install the server, so
> my inclination is to remove (or maybe comment out?) the line to install the
> client only.
>
> What do others think, keeping in mind that the aim here is to make it as
> easy as possible for the first time user (once they're hooked...), and not
> to come up with a covers-all-possible scenarios solution?
>
>
>>
>> I had a note for myself on the debian side as well, to make it more
>> copy/pastetable :) Thanks for taking care of that one!
>>
>
> Yw.
>
> --
> Dave Page
> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
> Twitter: @pgsnake
>
> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
>

--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake

EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company