Open source devs: please, please add screenshots...
I beg you, if you are a developer of an open source app or program - add screenshots of your app to the README file. When looking for the perfect app, I had to install dozens of them just to see what the user interface looked like and whether it suits me. This will allow users to decide if the app they choose will suit them… Please, don’t think about it, just do it…
Unironically yes. Asking someone that doesn’t use your project, isn’t part of the development, and quite possibly doesn’t even want anything to do with your project to do work for you project is silly.
I mean, it’s just a suggestion. The utility depends on the goal of the project. Am I being lazy? Don’t care. Do I want maximum user engagement/feedback; well, the suggestion is sound.
Won’t hurt to also put in a description of what your software actually is or does. Countless GitHub repos with instructions on how to install, but zero information about why I’d want to.
Grnrrth is a FOSS native qualitivate built with the Jot framework. It comfortably handles 2NUT, xrr, .gif, and any other Banbo hierarchies in a windowed, cross-system integrated module.
I can only speak for myself and a handful of other people I know who are into FOSS, but for us we care more about it being functional than looking pretty. I just want to see what I’m getting into, a reference for what a successful install looks like, or just check to see if it’s got the buttons I want on it.
Yup, if I don’t see screenshots for a desktop applications, I don’t bother since the developer clearly doesn’t understand what they’re doing. It’s especially baffling when it’s a WM/DE. It’s really trivial effort too. If the devs don’t get this basic point, it’s going to reflect in their poorly designed UX/UI as well.
Where should I store the screenshots? In a screenshots folder in the repo? Should I update them at some time? Should I screenshot both light and dark theme?
Update them if your UI has significantly changed or does not adequately represent the final product.
If having a light/dark theme is an important feature or highly requested feature for your project, it would be nice to show it off.
Screenshots can, most of the time, get away with showing just the default configuration. Share what a user would see when opening your project for the first time, and assume they used the default configuration. Optionally, if you offer a lot of customization, show what it could look like if someone spent a good amount of time personalizing things!
Yes. Git can store binary files fine. It’s not the most efficient for storing them, but it works, especially for a small number of screenshots. For updating and theme, that’s entirely up to you. It’s all a judgement call. If you want to show off your functionality (like a dark mode), I encourage you to include screenshots of it. If you substantially change your UI, update the images.
You don’t have to update for every new button you add. It’s more about giving a general impression of the UI. Is it minimalist? Is it a chaotic mess? Does it look like it fits in naturally with whatever OS appears to have been used? Does it look like any thought was put into UI and UX? Those are the kinds of things you’re trying to answer.
To be fair, most of time you can just Google %appname% screenshot. I understand that this is not as convenient as having screenshots in the readme, but eh, it’s not as big of a problem when you realize this.
P.S. I do actually add at least one screenshot for my software. Maybe because sometimes UI is one of the main focus, idk. I just feel like it.
UI is always the main focus for the user. Because it’s the “User Interface”.
Searching the web for screenshots is an added hassle and something that makes me avoid most FOSS software, because sometimes there’s not enough screenshots and not even the developer cared to show what the app is about.
I think that doesn’t work for most smaller projects. That’ll work for something like Firefox, but there’s little reason for random, unheard of tools to have an image on the web. Plus the naming of some projects is super generic, which can make it hard to find correct images.
Some software changes appearance often, too, and google is bad at knowing what up to date is. It can be really easy to find wildly out of date images as the top results.
Also please begin the Github page or whatever with a description of what the app is actually for or what it does. I know that sounds super obvious, but the number of times I’ve seen links that are like “I made this app from scratch for fun, let me know what you think!” and then you click through and the app is called Scrooblarr or something and it has no indication of what it actually does is… more than it should be.
If you’ve written a “usage” section that showcases more than one uselessly simple example that doesn’t even work in the project’s current state, you’re already far ahead of the average.
I feel like maybe you don’t know what a headless component library is. A cli has a head – the terminal. Headless applications, by definition, have no visual portion. For instance, a headless browser is a browser where the web page renders in-memory, but never displays any content. A headless component library, then, is one where the implementor doesn’t provide anything visual, only behavior. For web dev, is very helpful – the library implementator writes all the js, but the css and html (the “head”) are left to the user for use. The best headless component libraries, then have nothing to screenshot without the user supplying some implementation.
Who reads README’s anyway? Aren’t they like instruction manuals? You only read them once its broken? :) Or maybe i should start reading instruction manuals…
Mainly because my dad would do exactly that if he ever had to use github lol. I grew up watching him literally throw manuals aside, only to have me or my sister bring them back when he screwed up lol.
Although I understand the OP’s perspective open-source is a community effort and people should have a more proactive attitude and contribute when they feel things aren’t okay. Most open-source developers aren’t focused / don’t have time for how things look (or at least not on the beginning). If you’re a regular user and you can spend an hour taking a bunch of screenshots and improving a readme you’ll be making more for the future the project that you might think.
When the last big Twitter migration to Mastodon occurred there were a lot new users complaining about things like documentation, bugs, etc. Old users and FLOSS supporters kept pushing the “its open source, write a doc or fill out a bug ticket” and evem included documentation on how to do those tasks.
We just don’t live in a world where making the changes you want are encouraged. We have been thought to just accept whatever changes happen or at most file a suggestion that almost noone will listen to. Obviously open source is different but it’s still such a tiny minority compared to how the rest of the world functions
The big difference here is there is already this “learning curve” about the whole fediverse that people were struggling with that many of us wrote blog posts and had toot chains we’d forward explaining how this universe works. Adding in links and screen shots and templates for how to submit a bug…
…I hate saying this but the vast majority of people are just lazy. It’s not a culture issue or not something too difficult. People like to complain and not put in effort to things. People expect others to do things for them and don’t get that free comes with a cost.
FOSS isn’t really that small, it’s just that most people don’t do any type of investigation into what they use for technology. Much of what you use may have a for-profit company in front of it but huge parts of their products are open source andnyou can directly influence the products by actually engaging the projects themselves.
Yeah people are very much lazy and that’s fine, you just have to work around that and well culture is one way of getting people to do what should be done.
As you say Foss does impact quite a lot of those company products however what is the important part of the casual user is what and how they interact directly with the products and well at no point are they expected to directly impact the project, it’s just you use what you are given. That is why they have that people will do things for me mindset bc that is what happens with almost everything the use
I think this is interesting, certainly screenshots and giving an idea of how something works is important. It seems more important to many users rather than say developers. I guess developers have a different set of priorities, maybe it does make more sense for users to add screenshots or contribute as it is in their interest whereas maintaining and fixing critical bugs is more within the interest of the developer?
How would this even be communicated effectively to users? I find that most calls to support are vague and maybe if they were broken down by interest or skill set it would help people understand that they too could do something.
E.g. Having a headline that says contribute, and like a table with icons for different professions or areas people could contribute with different processes for each. I have friends who are good typesetters or editors, but they would not put in the effort to use github, they would prefer to use something closer to social media or word/docs at the most. It feels like github samples from only a subset of the population and is actively trying to ensure the comfort and curation of that community to the expense of others and collaborative work in general.
There’s both an ignorance and fear barrier to that.
A lot of people don’t know they can, and don’t know how. And even the ones that do know, often worry their contributions would be shit.
And there’s folks that just don’t think the project would accept that kind of submission.
I’m not contradicting your suggestion! It’s a great thing to let people know that they can contribute without knowing how to code. Just adding in both an explanation as to why it’s so rare, and hopefully allaying some of those worries for passersby.
I think it depends on the project. Some projects are the author’s personal tools that they’ve put online in the off-chance it will be useful to others, not projects they are really trying to promote.
I don’t think we should expect that authors of repos go too out of their way in those cases as the alternative would just be not to publish them at all.
NGL I actually didn’t know that I can do such a thing. I do still kinda have a closed source mindset in that anything I use I cannot change or Influence. Like I knew that other people can do that but I didn’t know I can do that
I’ve only done it once, and it wasn’t pictures, it was rewriting a horrible section about how to install a program my cousin was trying to build. He abandoned it three months later, but still.
From what I’ve heard from people that code, it’s polite to approach whoever is maintaining the project before jumping in, and it makes sense so that nobody wastes resources on something that isn’t going to get used.
If the app sucks, few people will add the screenshots. Therefore, most apps without screenshots will suck. So new apps will need the developer to add screenshots, or people will assume it sucks.
And we’re back to square one. The developer has extra responsibility to highlight the features.
One thing though: I’m likely not to stop and consider looking closer at an app if I can’t judge if it’s going to be what I’m looking for. I’m not going to go over random GitHub repositories and create screenshots for their projects. So if the assumption is that the user contributes screenshots I don’t think it will ever change anything for the majority of projects.
While we’re at it, I love that you let me customize the settings via a config, but for the love of god make the default config the best it can possibly be
I contribute to OS projects and work on one full time. EVERYBODY thinks that their obscure use case is the most common (not saying this is what you are doing).
We get users that are completely flabbergasted that our software doesn’t offer some feature that is totally specific to their industry and has never been requested even once by anyone else previously. We’ll show them our feature request form on our site where you can also view and upvote other requests, and point out that the feature they want has never been requested. They will literally come up with some bs excuse why that is and then insist that we get on it and build out this custom functionality that they need or else they’re going to slander us on social media.
Your app doesn’t integrate with “didLr”? OMG any decent app integrates with “didLr”!
I understand the developer POV too. It’s clear that getting the right config for most use cases is a UX problem, which may involve user studies, telemetry to be setup. Perhaps out of scope for most small scale individual projects.
Additionally, I also fully understand that many, if not most of these projects are hobby projects and expectations from users should align with the scope of the project and the resources committed. It’s so easy to feel entitled and deserving of high quality projects but they are so time consuming.
My comments were not for those projects but rather mature ones. And contributing to the projects is often the most appreciated way when proposing changes.
In all cases, for any free project, it is always acceptable to answer that something is out of scope, that resources don’t allow for the feature to be implemented or that additional help on implementing it are welcome.
People demanding something in exchange for nothing are obviously not the most welcome users :)
There’s a real problem here with backwards compatibility. If you add an option for something, it makes sense to make the default match the functionality of old versions, even if it’s not the best for general use cases. That way any tools built on top of it can safely update.
That said, the solution is to set new defaults for new installations only and not change existing configs. Users lose their minds (rightfully so) if you modify their existing configs.
I prefer the simple, sane defaults that work for everyone with a heavily commented config file giving detailed information on what each value for each option does, personally. Like MPV’s config file.
I haven’t even touched MPVs config file because I just assumed it would be empty like so much other software I use. Looks like I know what I’m doing tonight.
Add comment