Bug 160005 - Windows installer Online Update component option: description misleading/unclear on role/purpose
Summary: Windows installer Online Update component option: description misleading/uncl...
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: LibreOffice
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Installation (show other bugs)
Version:
(earliest affected)
24.2.1.2 release
Hardware: All Windows (All)
: medium minor
Assignee: Not Assigned
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2024-03-02 21:56 UTC by Philippe Cloutier
Modified: 2024-03-29 18:24 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Crash report or crash signature:


Attachments

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Philippe Cloutier 2024-03-02 21:56:17 UTC
LibreOffice offers an "Online Update" component/feature on Microsoft Windows. When it's missing, LO doesn't offer to check if the version is current. The relevant UI elements are missing, as described in this thread: https://ask.libreoffice.org/t/no-update-option-in-tools-menu/94794

I ended up wasting 10 to 15 minutes trying to figure out why my LO install was missing these UI elements, and finally installing Online Update, which I had presumably opted out from, when I first installed.
Unfortunately, this component, despite its pretty misleading name, doesn't actually update or even offer to update LO (unless an experimental feature is enabled). As its description indicates, it mostly checks if LO is up-to-date. So installing Online Update didn't really help me (I already knew that my version was outdated).

I am skeptical that I did opt out from Online Update, but if I did, that could have been due to its description (STR_DESC_MODULE_OPT_ONLINEUPDATE):
> Get automatically notified when a new update of %PRODUCTNAME becomes available.	 (English)
> Recevez une notification automatique lorsqu'une nouvelle mise à jour de %PRODUCTNAME est disponible. (French)

The phrasing implies one cannot opt out from these notifications. In reality, options allow to disable these checks even if the component is installed.

I suggest to rectify by indicating the behavior is optional, with a label like:


> Allows to be notified when a new update of %PRODUCTNAME becomes available.

Another option would be to just remove that component. Since it reportedly requires no storage space at all, it is not clear why one would not install it given that it is indeed optional. If there are reasons to avoid it, the description should clarify.

BTW, a space is missing between "0" and "kB".
Comment 1 Stéphane Guillou (stragu) 2024-03-22 04:34:46 UTC
Stephan, would you mind commenting on this issue?
Comment 2 Stephan Bergmann 2024-03-22 07:58:18 UTC
The current state is admittedly a bit confusing, because there are currently two competing update mechanisms on Windows:

For one, there is the "traditional" notification-based mechanism (that only tells you that a new version is available, and optionally downloads it, but never automatically installs it for you).  This functionality is only installed when not de-selecting the "Online Update" optional component during installation.  Additionally, the option "Check for updates automatically" on LO's "Online Update" options tab page must not be de-selected.

For another, there is a new, still experimental MAR-based mechanism (that automatically installs a new version for you).  This functionality is installed unconditionally (but see bug 159979 "Make installation of MAR-based update functionality optional in the MSI installer").  Additionally, the "Enable experimental features" option and the option "Enable automatic update" on LO's "Online Update" options tab page must be selected.

The plan is to eventually drop the first mechanism and make the second mechanism non-experimental and enabled by default.

(In reply to Philippe Cloutier from comment #0)
> I am skeptical that I did opt out from Online Update, but if I did, that
> could have been due to its description (STR_DESC_MODULE_OPT_ONLINEUPDATE):
> > Get automatically notified when a new update of %PRODUCTNAME becomes available.	 (English)
> > Recevez une notification automatique lorsqu'une nouvelle mise à jour de %PRODUCTNAME est disponible. (French)
> 
> The phrasing implies one cannot opt out from these notifications. In
> reality, options allow to disable these checks even if the component is
> installed.
> 
> I suggest to rectify by indicating the behavior is optional, with a label
> like:
> 
> 
> > Allows to be notified when a new update of %PRODUCTNAME becomes available.

I personally don't think such a rewording would be useful, neither in light of that optional component potentially going away anyway (see above), nor in making it more clear what that option does (many things can be turned off in LO's options pages, still we don't generally phrase the corresponding features as "allows to have this feature available, unless you switch it off").

I'll thus tentatively close as WONTFIX.  If you disagree, please reopen and add the "needsUXEval" keyword.
Comment 3 Philippe Cloutier 2024-03-29 18:17:25 UTC
Thank you, but could someone clarify how this was resolved?
Comment 4 Philippe Cloutier 2024-03-29 18:24:07 UTC
(In reply to Stephan Bergmann from comment #2)
> [...]

Thank you Stephan
 
> (In reply to Philippe Cloutier from comment #0)
> > I am skeptical that I did opt out from Online Update, but if I did, that
> > could have been due to its description (STR_DESC_MODULE_OPT_ONLINEUPDATE):
> > > Get automatically notified when a new update of %PRODUCTNAME becomes available.	 (English)
> > > Recevez une notification automatique lorsqu'une nouvelle mise à jour de %PRODUCTNAME est disponible. (French)
> > 
> > The phrasing implies one cannot opt out from these notifications. In
> > reality, options allow to disable these checks even if the component is
> > installed.
> > 
> > I suggest to rectify by indicating the behavior is optional, with a label
> > like:
> > 
> > 
> > > Allows to be notified when a new update of %PRODUCTNAME becomes available.
> 
> I personally don't think such a rewording would be useful, neither in light
> of that optional component potentially going away anyway (see above), nor in
> making it more clear what that option does (many things can be turned off in
> LO's options pages, still we don't generally phrase the corresponding
> features as "allows to have this feature available, unless you switch it
> off").

The quoted fragment is basically nonsensical, and I hope no one suggested anything like that.

 
> I'll thus tentatively close as WONTFIX.  If you disagree, please reopen and
> add the "needsUXEval" keyword.

Can you clarify what you mean by "close as WONTFIX"?