On Wednesday 08 December 2010 06:41:34 Volodya wrote: > On 12/07/2010 08:30 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Saturday 04 December 2010 04:42:37 Volodya wrote: > >>> - /download/<key> and the Download link linking to it have been removed. > >>> Click the key instead. > >>> - One reason for this was /download/<key> would not warn the user about > >>> dangerous content and would not filter stuff that can be filtered. > >>> - However you can still get the data on disk from the downloads/ > >>> directory, or click on the key and download it from there. > >> > >> I think it was a poor design decision. All the octet-streams fail now. You > >> need > >> to click on the key and it quickly downloads it (how quick depends on the > >> file) > >> after that you must once again click on force browser to download. > > > > The bugs, such as there were, are fixed. In particular, we no longer show > > the file length warning, and clicking on "force your browser to download to > > disk" still uses the downloads as a cache i.e. works instantly. > > Yep, i can confirm those bugs were fixed. Thanks for your work. > > >> The process is counterintuitive. If you tell the user that you download to > >> the > >> temporary space, the user should be able to download to disk after it > >> completes > >> and not look for a work around all the error messages. The errors are > >> there even > >> if you turn off the content filter. > > > > If you turn off the content filter for that download then click on the key > > again then yes you still get the warning. This is because it is far too > > easy to download stuff by accident. Should we skip the confirmation and > > show potentially dangerous content immediately? IMHO it is unrealistic to > > expect the user to remember what was filtered and what was not. > > While i agree with your logic, your solution is a bit strange, you assume the > user actually wanted the content filter. Maybe it would be better to have > something like advanced mode showing if the content filter is turned on? > > In the basic mode i think you are correct, it's better to show the warning, > and > then allow direct download if the person chooses to do that.
I guess we could list them separately but is it really worth the complexity? Also this isn't about filtering, it's about dangerous content types, which we can't filter.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
