intrigeri:
> sajolida wrote (27 May 2016 16:03:38 GMT) :
>> My conclusion is that our user base is not what it should be... :(
>
> ACK
>
>> I guess that these ratios are very different from the market shares of
>> these operating systems in general. But I see little reason for them to
>> differ as Tails runs independently from the base OS.
>
> I see another bunch of reasons that seems pretty convincing to me:
> people who are already using GNU/Linux:
>
> 1. are more technical, so more likely to be at ease trying something
> new;
> 2. are already somewhat comfortable with GNU/Linux, so trying Tails
> won't be as scary as "trying GNU/Linux for the first time";
> 3. already have gone through the installation process of a GNU/Linux
> distribution, as opposed to using a pre-installed OS shipped with
> their computer, so the whole concept of installing an OS is already
> rather inside their comfort zone.
Right!
> Also, note that these numbers don't account for a (possibly large)
> part of the Tails users population, i.e. those who get their stick
> installed/upgraded by cloning, or by "Install from ISO" done by
> someone who already knows how to do it, simply because it's
> historically been the only doable way to get it done for them in
> practice: in most cases I witness around me, those people won't go
> through the assistant at all, they'll just hand out their USB stick to
> a slightly more technical person who will do the cloning, and that
> more technical person won't go through the assistant either as they
> already know how to clone their Tails. And it's exactly the same when
> that more technical person does "Install from ISO" from a Debian-based
> system. These use cases simply generate zero hit in our web stats, so
> let's keep in mind that these stats we have are mostly about
> first-time users, isolated ones, and technically autonomous ones;
> I don't know how big a part of our user base they are (probably big,
> but is it 50%, or 80%, or what? we simply don't know).
Agreed as well. I wonder if the "market shares" of this population
differs from the people referring to our website.
> This situation might change in the future, but I expect it to take
> a long time, the power of past habits is immense. Even though the IA
> might now enable the users I have in mind to install/upgrade Tails
> themselves, they are barely aware of it; also, for some of them, the
> first time they tried it was not translated yet into their native
> language, which put them off, and since then they never tried it
> again. Besides, they simply already have a way to solve their problem,
> so why should they bother trying something new? :)
>
>> Maybe Linux user are more conscious about privacy than Windows user?
>> But would we say this about Mac?
>
> I personally don't believe that Mac users are generally more privacy
> aware than Windows ones. The Apple hardware+OS island is arguably at
> least as bad than the PC/Windows one, in terms of locking down stuff
> and making the user powerless in front of a single vendor.
>
>> So for me, seeing this would rather reveals that our
>> proposal and adoption and installation processes, are off-pulling for
>> Windows and Mac users, maybe by reputation (eg. hardware support for
>> Mac, complicated to install and start, etc.).
>
> Yes. We certainly have a lot of room for improvement in this area, but
> some of the reasons I've mentioned above will simply always apply, and
> we can't do much about that: regardless of how easy our installation
> process is, and regardless of how good our hardware support is, for
> a Windows/Mac user the whole thing will always be "trying a brand new
> kind of OS with its own, specific means of installation and boot".
The paradox here is that right now it's much easier to install for
people on Debian and Ubuntu, for which as you are saying, trying Tails
(independently from the installation procedure) might not be such an
adventure.
> So, we perhaps need to work on this not only by making the
> installation and first-boot process easier and more user-friendly
> (which we have focussed on so far), but also at the _previous_ step:
> the one when people who heard about Tails and get interested decide to
> try it out… or not. IMO working on these psychological blockers is key
> to making our user base less technical and Linux-centric.
>
> This can include e.g. a video tour that would demystify the whole
> thing and explain it's not *that* hard, having Tails pre-installed on
> consumer devices that would allow more people to try it out without
> having to _first_convince themselves that they are actually able to do
> so, or whatever relevant onboarding website/documentation improvement
> (e.g. our "Getting started" page could certainly provide a warmer and
> more welcoming feeling).
Exactly. That's what I meant by "proposal" in my previous answer. The
way we present Tails to people and the way Tails is perceived is
probably less off-pulling for Linux users than Win/Mac users; or should
be way more well-coming if we want Win/Mac users to give Tails a try.
Added something about this in #9814#note-8.
> I don't think this is new thinking at all: IIRC it was the whole point
> of the "from the inside out" UX roadmap to first make Tails easier to
> install and use, before we started seriously reaching out to more,
> less technical users. How I see it, we've completed the biggest part
> of the first step, and it'll soon be time to look into the next one.
I strongly disagree here. DAVE improves the verification process for
everybody, that's right. But the installation process for Windows and
Mac hasn't change in years and is right now way more complicated than it
is for Debian and Ubuntu. The installation assistant only presents it in
a linear form which is easier to understand than previously.
For me "the biggest part of the first step" will be completed only once
everybody, regardless of their base OS, will be able to follow a similar
procedure to install Tails (using Tails Installer or not, that's still
unclear).
> Disclaimer: I don't know if -project@ is the right place to have this
> discussion. Feel free to redirect to -ux@ (keeping me Cc'ed) if you
> think it would be more appropriate :)
I think -project@ is fine. It's definitely UX in the stricter sense of
the term, but it's also a big-picture discussion about what Tails means
to the world and how we could change this. In the end, we're using
tails-ux more for UI than UX :)
