From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Philip K." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:42:14 +0200 Message-ID: <87y2kc8v09.fsf@posteo.net> References: <87imbia0dq.fsf@posteo.net> <20201011104627.GB28425@protected.rcdrun.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="26390"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.1 (gnu/linux) Cc: abrochard@gmx.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Jean Louis Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sun Oct 11 20:43:21 2020 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1kRgJV-0006mz-51 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:43:21 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:46350 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kRgJT-0004bs-MN for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:43:20 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39266) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kRgIW-0004Ce-G7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:42:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]:58146) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kRgIT-00019C-TI for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 14:42:20 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [89.146.220.130]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B6CFC160061 for ; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:42:15 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1602441735; bh=AuvINwm3e8mJ3xodXFHgWbX2LfxU9svweI2H2uxGEtY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:From; b=C3NVN+JkyRWCXoDX1aa+DBHIkyYTUlUWPgnV6jMMp4lOJvLc6FIlil62hCUNgzNR2 M+aTL/ELE0zFcBokNhZC6TNdZbMGAUP7EzymL45e6yZ4caRrPzzV79DO2ChTZAXxQb TrjhSpylXG44FDd0p/bLfAdgxHwqWquTT07JThj/2qwnkQYNWcZXvPn9451iXgzRU1 E4T7zKcWr5N90Y/Zs/8QmuqvtOQH/BmvM6F6kjgQQrxESJ+kSmbMAbx5GLqxgs9Hn9 ALfd3zK504CZScncdczk9CV79Km9Oee6s2eWOdSiL1A2jJKk9BQCki7LKcKsY04n+l SHmn/knYaA+FQ== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4C8VzC17mBz9rxG; Sun, 11 Oct 2020 20:42:15 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20201011104627.GB28425@protected.rcdrun.com> (Jean Louis's message of "Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:46:27 +0300") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=philipk@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/11 13:48:01 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.11 and newer [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -27 X-Spam_score: -2.8 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.8 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:257393 Archived-At: Jean Louis writes: > * Philip K. [2020-10-10 12:37]: >> Richard Stallman writes: >> >> > [[[ To any NSA and FBI agents reading my email: please consider ]]] >> > [[[ whether defending the US Constitution against all enemies, ]]] >> > [[[ foreign or domestic, requires you to follow Snowden's example. ]]] >> > >> > > The most obvious reason to me is that user error handling is pretty >> > > poor. Because there is no JS, we cannot offer front-end validation, that >> > > means that the backend server is responsible for validating fields >> > > submitted. >> > >> > If we want to learn what users think, we should not limit their >> > responses to a small set of 'valid" possible answers. The plan >> > I designed for inquiries asks users to answer in their own words. >> >> But wouldn't that make it needlessly hard to analyse the results, >> especially if the question should be numerically quantified? > > As I have done larger surveys for public relations and I know methods, > I know how tedious it is to evaluate such survey, we have been > employing many people, like 20 people, to just analyze what exactly > did people check or did not check, what did they write, to read their > handwriting, and then to properly analyze it. > > However, Emacs feature requests or survey about using Emacs need live > user, not user as a number. Of course, but there are still numbers that describe aggregate phenomenons that individual users don't actively notice. A question I would be interested in is what the correlation is between people who use specific configuration-templates (Doom, Spacemacs, etc.) and how long they have been using Emacs/Age. Depending on what the results are, we would have a batter guess as to whether the popularity of these templates is just because newer users aren't secure in configuring their own Emacs, or if people just like these templates in general (what they like is individual, that's where plain text responses are interesting). Other than that, I don't see why both approaches should be possible. Mixed, or separated, you can ask multiple/single choice questions for "hard data", and plain text for individual opinions. -- Philip K.