I think that simply having the preference, defaulted to on, is valuable guidance that automatic update checking is available. I don't think its presence is clutter nor confusing. Furthermore, relying upon a checkbox in the automatic update notification window means that we are forcing a single phone-home before the opportunity is given to turn it off. I think that's bad behavior.
-Evan On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Christopher Forsythe <ch...@growl.info>wrote: > I'd agree with that. Would the current sparkle+ dialogue be good enough for > that? > > Chris > > > On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 6:06 PM, Colin Barrett <co...@springsandstruts.com > > wrote: > >> Any feature that phones home should have a user-visible off switch. >> Period. Anything else is disrespectful of the privacy of our users. >> >> -Colin >> >> >> On Jul 28, 2011, at 4:01 PM, Jordan wrote: >> >> Are there plans for any sort of fall-back or more 'advanced' toggling for >> these preferences? In other words, some of the items that can be removed >> from the UI could still be optional toggles that are configured purely with >> hidden prefs. I'll use the Sparkle Update option as an example: >> >> remove "Automatically check for updates", in my opinion users should >> always get informed about new versions (pks) >> >> - *I'm unsure. Pretty much every app I know that uses Sparkle has this >> setting... -Robbie* >> - *I feel the same as Robbie, although I must agree - I can't think of >> a situation where anyone would actually disable this? (paulwilde)* >> - *What about adding a checkbox "Do not remind me again" to the >> update-information-window? (pks)* >> - *Disagree. We always need an opt out for auto updating because it >> involves phoning home. Also, IT people want to do manual updates of >> software. It must stay. -Colin* >> - *Disagree. Opting out of options that phone home is important. >> -Steve* >> >> The suggested solution (by pks) to use a "Do not prompt me for updates" >> option in the update window does provide an opt-out to prevent the >> application from phoning home. Colin brought up the point that IT personnel >> would always toggle this off, so removing it would annoy those folks. Why >> not also have a hidden pref for this. Hidden prefs are exactly the kind of >> thing IT personnel are accustomed to making use of. They're likely scripting >> their installs anyway, so using a command-line toggled hidden preference is >> perfect. >> >> We have transitioned certain options to hidden preferences in the past and >> I don't recall there being any major problems resulting from it. I think >> some people suggested at the time that continuing to use a hidden preference >> still provides complexity to troubleshooting that wouldn't be there if the >> preference were removed altogether. This is true in theory, but I don't >> think we have run into that problem in practice all that often (I can't >> think of a single occurrence from when I was more actively involved). >> >> While I think that where possible a complete removal of any given >> preference would be great, there will always be cases where someone comes up >> with a good reason not to remove it; this can be seen at this very time by >> skimming through the comments on the PreferenceReduction2011 page. Hidden >> preferences may provide exactly the happy-medium required to allow for UI >> simplification while still appeasing power users. >> >> Cheers, >> >> Jordan >> >> ---- >> Sent with Sparrow <http://www.sparrowmailapp.com/> >> >> On Thursday, 28 July, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Colin Barrett wrote: >> >> I've updated it with my feedback. Would be great to get input from more >> people. >> >> http://trac.adium.im/wiki/PreferenceReduction2011 >> >> -Colin >> >> >> >> >
