Personally I hate auto-created desktop shortcut icons, but some folks seem to think that unless your installer clutters up your desktop, it hasn't worked correctly!
Are there definite guidelines for this (for Windows?)
(Having a "Leave clutter on my desktop?" checkbox in the installer is one option, but to my mind, that's just put MORE clutter into the installer...)
From here: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/uxguide/winenv-desktop
If your users are very likely to use your program frequently, provide an option during setup to put a program shortcut on the desktop. Most programs won't be used frequently enough to warrant offering this option.
Present the option unselected by default. Requiring users to select the option is important because once undesired icons are on the desktop, many users are reluctant to remove them. This can lead to unnecessary desktop clutter.
If users select the option, provide only a single program shortcut. If your product consists of multiple programs, provide a shortcut only to the main program.
Put only program shortcuts on the desktop. Don't put the actual program or other types of files.
My take is this: the installer must ask me if I want a desktop icon - to which I can reply yes or no.
Any app that just blindly and without asking installs its icon on my desktop is a bad installation in my opinion.
Ask for permission - if I deem your app important enough to me personally, I might say yes (but most likely I won't). Give your users a choice - don't just assume since it's your app, it's so darn important to everyone that everyone will want to clutter up their desktop with your program icon.
The same goes for the installation directory - unless you have a very good technical reason why you can't install anywhere, allow me to change the program's installation target directory. Not everyone is a big fan of the "c:\program files" folder hierarchy (I'm not, for one - I like to keep my apps in C:\bin for instance).
So in general: any decent installer should ASK the user installing for these things and present sensible defaults - but always give me the option to change the settings to my liking (to my standards).
I don't know of any meaningful guidelines, other than your conscience. As a programmer, I sympathize: I don't want icons on my desktop, either :-) However, having watched non-technical family members struggle with installing software and then trying to run it, I think it's worth noting that
1) There are more non-techies than techies
2) Techies can cope with checkboxes on installers
Based on that, I usually go for having a checkbox on the installer for creating icons, which defaults to on. I don't mind anything other than the "always create icons" approach. (I'm looking at you, Adobe.)
I think that depends on what you see your client doing with the app, the level of the client's expertise with computers and how frequently you see him using it.
If the client is not very well versed with computers he would prefer to have the icon on the desktop where he can access it. If you target market is experienced users you don't need to bother because he can make the icon himself if he wants it.
If the application is for daily frequent use like a web browser the client would want it on his desktop for quick access.
Finally the decision rests on you. If you're being obnoxious you can create 4 icons on the desktop (I've seen apps that do that).
I don't think asking for permission is a bad idea. After all the installation needs to be done only once and it's just one checkbox to tick.
I've no particular love for desktop (or quick launch) shortcut icons either, but I think that you should still give your users the option in the installer to install neither, one or both of these shortcuts.
Depending on how computer literate your users are (if it's possible to determine this) you can default the two options to either enabled or disabled accordingly.
Related
I am writing desktop programs for windows and when I need to put some program to start automatically I always use one of those options:
1 - Put a shortcut to the program in the startup group
2 - Create a value key on Windows Registry ("SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Run")
Which of this options is a best practice?
It depends on how much weight you would apply to the following questions:
As a user, should I be able to deactivate the automatic startup easily, even temporarily?
As a user, should I get the feeling that the developer trusts me to know what I'm doing?
Clarification:
If I have a shortcut in the AutoStart folder, I know that I can quickly disable this part by myself and the developer trusts me to do this.
If I don't have this visual clue, I have to actively look for it using more-or-less arcane tools (speaking from experience here).
If the automatic startup is essential for the correct function of the program, by all means, put it somewhere I can't get to it. But if it's a nice-to-have thing, like a "quickstarter", then please don't.
I want my app to install invisibly, from the browser.
No "Do you want to save file", no "Do you want to run this file", nothing!
I've notice Google Chrome, when installed from IE, almost mimics this, but still has a few steps. Can I go further? What are good resources/ books on invisible install?
Edit: ClickOnce is this a viable option?
What you ask is not really at all about Windows Installer or MSIs, but rather a shell (or more specifically UAC) issue.
Once you have gotten initial approval from the user it is indeed possible to go about updates quietly. However, UAC was at least invented to make some user decisions more obvious to the user (keep in mind that MS claims it not to be a security feature, though, anymore).
The only alternative route would be through exploits of privileged software that is already running on a user's system, which effectively is a shortcut of the "initial approval" described above. But that makes it even more obvious that something is wrong about the approach you are trying to use - which looks suspiciously akin to malware/spyware and the likes.
I have an application that has to support modifying some registry data depending on the kind of 'installation' that is desired. At present, I have no problems hard-coding to either get elevation and do the changes to the entire local machine, but it is far from nice as ideally, I would also like to support per-user installations. I could hardcode that, but then I lose the local-machine stuff. To be precise, the changes in question involve file association changes, COM stuff etc.
How can I properly support both usage scenarios? Currently I use a set of ON/OFF checkboxes for the variety of associations.
Should I change this meaning on, for example, a MachineInstall file existing in my apps directory, and if not assume User install?
Is it an expected/valid/whatever usecase to say that someone might want to do some things for the entire machine, and some things only for the user? (E.g. mixing of the two.)
Or should I change the entire UI, move away from checkboxes and move to some sort of combobox going 'None/User/Local'? Then again, I think this might have some sort of breakage once you involve multiple users and combinations.
To give an indication, I personally expect the application in question to have its uses for everyone on a computer and as such lean towards the Local-Machine as a 'default', if that makes any sort of difference.
I am likely overthinking the matters quite a bit, so any and all input is very much appreciated. :)
P.S.
Now, someone is probably going to say 'do not do all that stuff from your app, do it from the installer instead'. And they probably have a point, but the point is to allow easy changing of these settings from within the application. To top it off, I am not using .MSI install packages because they make working with 32/64-bit specific executables a disaster requiring merge modules, spawning other MSI's depending on the situation, and so forth (I forgot the details last time I dug into it and forgot about the matter). I don't have that knowledge, nor the time to learn all the intricacies of MSI installations, so it is out for as far I am concerned. To boot, my application is perfectly capable of functioning without any of those registry entries being present, and that is by design. In a way, one might compare it to be like Process Explorer from Sysinternals, which does not require an installer, but can be unzipped and take over the task manager etc without a problem if a user wants, or simply run stand-alone.
For some time I've noticed how much the File Open and File save dialogs vary between Windows itself and Applications. In Delphi for example (which I use) you can use the built-in dialogs (which have a folder tree) and direct calls to the Windows API which produce variants of the Windows version, with or without large buttons for 'Desktop', 'My Computer' etc (At least on XP).
As an application developer I'm interested in providing the User with a clean, simple way of loading and saving files. Typically, this requires that I propose a preferred folder where my Application data files are stored but that I allow the User to access other folders - often the desktop and other local drives, and sometimes the network - without difficulty if required.
With the introduction of Vista, we seem to be favouring a 'bits missing' folder navigation tree for Windows dialogs and now, Windows 7 has another 'line-less tree' for navigation. I suspect that if one conforms to Microsofts assumptions and stores everything in ~/documents it's not a big problem. However, if one has to start at the root of a drives tree and there are many directories then it's a right pain - there is no horizontal scrolling so directory names get truncated.
My question is - what do other Application developers use? I wonder whether I should be following this Windows lead or simply sticking to a simple cut-down version of File dialogs over which I full control but risk falling into the past....?
Thanks
Brian
Always use the OS defaults - it'll be what your users are used to, and what they expect. Whatever you do, don't astonish the user. Whatever you do, please don't write your own file-open/file-save dialog.
FWIW, I'm not a great fan of Vista's file-open dialog (why do I have to work so hard to navigate my folders?), but I'd rather that than have to get to grips with something new. The less things your users have to learn, the easier your product is to use.
Since I am currently only coding for customers with Windows XP (in a corporate environment that isn't upgrading just yet) I use the standard dialog boxes.
When we do upgrade, I will most likely continue to use the standard old fashioned dialog boxes, until our customers are ready for a change.
In all honesty, I involve at least a few users in the development process, and I won't start new features unless I can bring one in to sit in front of my development PC to see how it works, and they sign off on it.
For those apps that we write for our web site, we tend to be conservative as well... Focus on clean, understandable design, and introduce fancy new features only when there is a compelling reason, and even then, we tend to involve focus groups.
So all that was a long way of saying "Ask your customers". Give them what they want.
I think one of the main causes of winrot are the sheer number of services that run at startup (and don't shut down) that phone home every x seconds to see if there is a new version of some piece of software.
Me personally, I disable every single one of them because they seem utterly useless to me. Most of the software packages that use these things, have an option to check for updates whenever you launch the program itself too. This looks way more efficient to me.
I was asking myself what the reason is for companies like Adobe and Apple to create such services that bog clients' computers down and at the same time increase the burden on their own update servers for what looks to me as very little return value for neither of them.
My client requests such a service, but I don't see any reason for it. I want to make sure I'm not missing a piece of the puzzle so I can come back with an educated opinion on why this is should or shouldn't be a desired functionality.
It's usually a desire by management to get brand recognition. It goes something like this:
Oh no. If our program just does its job, the user will never see that it's there, and they'll never find out who we are, and what a great company we are.
We need an icon in the tray; we need a shortcut on the desktop, and in the quick launch toolbar, and at the top level of the Start menu. If we could add a control panel applet, and an item on the right-click menu in Windows Explorer, and an icon in Internet Explorer, that'd be fantastic.
Of course, since our program's so important, the user's going to be using it a lot. Let's add a "speed boost" program that runs at startup, that makes sure that all of our binaries and dependencies are pre-loaded in the cache.
Oh, and we'll need an automated update program, to make sure that all of these components are as wham-bam-great as we can make them.
And can you put a splash screen on that as well?
Can you tell I'm bitter?
Roger's spot on.
Plus, once an application has developed to the point where it already has all the features you could expect it to cover for its intended purpose, the vendor is stuck. They need to keep banging out exciting new versions, so scope bloat creeps in. Instead of doing one thing well and getting out of the way, we must do everything related to it. We must always be in the user's face; they must never be allowed to use software that isn't ours; they must always be interacting with our brand. And of course we must take care to always start an updater task in the background, because we added a completely unnecessary internet-facing browser plugin/toolbar/ActiveX thing that will surely turn out to have security holes.
Acquisitive software is a huge problem that is steadily degrading the user experience on Windows. And it's an arms race: Microsoft hide old application surface interfaces (deprecating the classic start menu, removing quick launch, hiding system tray icons, auto-removing inactive Desktop icons) as they become so full of acquisitive-software junk that they're basically unusable, whilst introducing new ones that "will be better". But how long until applications start "helpfully" adding themselves to the Start menu's MRU list (because you're definitely going to want to use our great software a lot!) and pinning themselves to the Windows 7 dock?
Linux is doing better here because the distros own access to the user and aren't going to put up with any of this crap. Not something Microsoft can get away with though unfortunately.
Bonus Did You Know Fun Fact: Once upon a time, Nero was a nice, elegant CD-burning tool.