Does: There are 5 pending conflicts: make sense?
On Jan 26, 2007, at 10:22 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
At 10:09 AM 1/26/2007 -0800, Mimi Yin wrote:
I'm wondering if that's obvious to the user?
Probably not the first time; it might be perceived as meaning
simply that other people sent changes. i.e., it might be thought
that you have to always approve changes that other people send,
which might lead to careless application of those changes.
I'm tempted to replace 'overwrite local changes' with 'overwrite your
changes', except that, that's not always true, because somebody
else's changes may have been applied either via an update or sharing
edits.
Let's keep it to "There are 5 pending changes." and see what kind of
confusion that incurs before tweaking the wording?
How about "There are 5 conflicting changes pending"? :)
Anyway, it was just a suggestion. I tend to be a little paranoid
about informing users about data loss, because I've seen too many
failure modes where people develop a habitual response pattern
(like clicking "OK" on everything), but the current state is
certainly suitable for a user who knows how Chandler is *supposed*
to work and already understands its sharing model.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
