6

Main question

As there is consensus on refining our scope with respect to tech support, the next step is to rephrase the respective close reason accordingly. As we have one free slot for a custom close reason, it is possible to replace it with two close reasons. This question is simple: What new close reason(s) should replace tech support?

The current close reason is:

This appears to be a tech support question about fixing technology to work as advertised. Please edit the question so that it pertains to using technology to solve a design problem. You may want to check if it hasn't already been asked in Super User. In many cases, contacting the manufacturer is the quickest option.

Technical constraints and voting

Please post one suggestion (one close reason or a pair of close reasons) per answer and use votes on the answers to indicate agreement disagreement. You have 400 characters available and it seems that you can use the short links as listed here.

Some food for thought for answering and voting

  • Using two close reasons has its pros and cons: It allows us to be more specific and can allow for restructuring our close reasons by incorporating other aspects in those two close reasons. On the other hand, it obviously means that we do not have a free slot available for future close reasons.

  • Close reasons have two functions:

    • They inform and provide guidance for the asker.
    • They tell close reviewers what the question’s problem is.
  • Despite the above, some close voters will take the close reason as a definition of scope and vote to close all questions to which it applies. Therefore, the close reason should should match our scope.

  • There is no reason to keep the term tech support. On the contrary, keeping this term may lead to some close voters continuing to use this close reason like the old one.

| |
  • Doesn't adding a close reason mean we also need to remove one? Or can there be more than five? – PieBie Oct 2 '17 at 10:06
  • 2
    @PiBie we currently use 2 of a possible 3 custom close reasons (currently "tech support" and "critique/id") – Cai Oct 2 '17 at 10:13
7

I propose to use two new close reasons:

  • This question does not fall within the expertise of graphic designers. This particularly applies to software and hardware questions that are not specific to graphic-design tools – they may be suited for Super User.

    This is essentially a specified version of the blatantly off-topic close reason. It also captures the first point of the new tech-support scope (“Questions should be closed […] if [… t]here is no reason to expect that graphic designers (i.e., our community) are particularly knowledgeable about the subject.”)

  • Solving this problem requires access to a specific setup, file, or interaction with you or your machine. Questions on this site should be potentially useful to future visitors, not depend on external resources, and be answerable without trial and error.

    This captures the second point of the new tech-support scope (“Questions should be closed […] if [… v]alidating an answer requires a specific setup that cannot be assumed to be readily available”). As a bonus, it also captures other link-only questions.

Please feel free to suggest improvements to the wording or build a better answer upon this one.

| |
  • I'm still blown out of the water by how you're handling this. I can only upvote. – Vincent Oct 5 '17 at 10:17

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .