From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: Proposal for an Emacs User Survey Date: Fri, 9 Oct 2020 19:21:56 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: References: <30addebe-999b-c1cc-a8d8-27aba3fac566@gmx.com> <4a1188f8-9864-54c0-ae6f-5f32102d9757@gmx.com> <5f153065-6e26-424e-65e1-17232a580990@gmx.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36892"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Adrien Brochard , rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 10 04:22:47 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 1kR4X1-0009W3-La for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 04:22:47 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:36202 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR4X0-0002Rp-D1 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 22:22:46 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57190) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR4WM-00021g-Q2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 22:22:06 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:45710) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1kR4WK-0005fr-R6; Fri, 09 Oct 2020 22:22:06 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09A2LdDb066615; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:21:59 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=ZrM2mvYPcw6h8QFAJs4xzDwim2jhHRirzbL4x3kssLA=; b=qLO5TEWhO3tZfK9okoJalF7bmuhaDOKUgqQf3Aq7J2z500+0OXOdRXvR3bBMjGTleCMH x4Mk+5OHEgp1nJ2L4i0diQZmle8M79H6Fb1jG8ComU0q/YbsMVQPxVYR7LKApGLMS9mw 11yDy9lTtlKCexy0nAB4NLQ/nM2RCTA8ZdpX2sc4pt6pxSKJm2eFZW5sYSIEPLH6foh8 ThipWaWra2m3AO4xmV225EvwJcco5+dSZrFd1yY5p3iJGyR4HnK4FPShGhGyRabBSrW1 g93Yursg8kbk8b+cqZYGn/XPQ6nA2vri2RZ43uBgp0eeO5X1tBRgjmtC89jQUJsTE9Kq Sw== Original-Received: from aserp3020.oracle.com (aserp3020.oracle.com [141.146.126.70]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3429jmp2ff-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL); Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:21:59 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (aserp3020.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by aserp3020.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 09A2KxNs114190; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:21:58 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by aserp3020.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3432yvh2tq-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:21:58 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0014.oracle.com (abhmp0014.oracle.com [141.146.116.20]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 09A2Lvcb020573; Sat, 10 Oct 2020 02:21:57 GMT In-Reply-To: <5f153065-6e26-424e-65e1-17232a580990@gmx.com> X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.5056.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9769 signatures=668681 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=2 spamscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010100020 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9769 signatures=668681 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=2 clxscore=1015 phishscore=0 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 mlxlogscore=999 priorityscore=1501 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2009150000 definitions=main-2010100020 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.85; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/10/09 22:22:03 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.1-3.10 [fuzzy] X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham 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:257292 Archived-At: > > As a start, lose all of the multiple choices. > > Just have open questions, letting users say > > what they do/use/prefer, etc. > > > > The multiple choices, even with an "other", > > bias the results. >=20 > How does it bias results exactly? Suggestions of what is possible. My suggestion is to just leave the questions open, and let people express themselves however they think best, rather than being incited to choose among suggested alternatives. Just a suggestion. > multiple choices have higher completion rate and give specific answers.= =20 Higher completion rate and specific answers can mean little, compared to thoughtful responses. Emacs has always preferred the latter. And explicitly solicit reasons - everywhere. Reasons can be important for guiding decisions here. > The set of questions is organized such that we have: > - multiple choices regarding factual and technical practices (which > version of Emacs/OS/packages etc) I've said what I think. Asking about packages is a bit different from asking about Emacs version and OS. The former, at least, should be an open question, IMHO. > - open ended question with broader topics and free text > - meta questions about the survey itself >=20 > > Ask users to express themselves, then work > > with whatever info they provide for the questions. >=20 > That's the point of the more open ended questions with free text along > with the general feedback section. Yes. My suggestion is more of that and less of citing multiple things that a user might consider choosing. Choosing OS's and Emacs versions is less likely to be opinion-based than choosing packages etc., and it's unlikely that someone will come up with a new (unlisted) OS or Emacs version. It's a different terrain, IMO - more choices, more movement/evolution, more individual preference-based.