On 19 May 2010, at 23:36, Christopher Forsythe wrote: > > > OK, if you add a white list feature, it should not be able to be > > > overridden by end user in any case. > > > > This overrides one of our main goals, giving users the control. I'm ok > > with a white list, but the end user must have control. > > What do you mean by control here? > > I mean that in the end, the end user can decide what they get notified for. > > If the admin decides to notify for something which is quite not in the > interest of the end user, and the end user knows enough about Growl to get > around the admins control, then they should be allowed to do that. >
Exactly. For a regular user of growl, the admin’s set of notifications I expect would be quite limited (as they are aiming for “don’t upset or confuse unaware users”). So for me as a regular user, I would almost certainly want to be able to at least enable any others I like. I can see a reasonable argument for not being able to disable those notifications whitelisted (especially if they’re being used eg. to push notifications by the admin as previously mentioned), although I’d rather expect that the admin could rely on aware users to behave themselves in this respect, rather than force things. >From my point of view, this comes down to what we want to achieve: Do we want to allow admins to blanket apply a default set of notifications and configurations thereof, to stop support cases from unaware users (and other benefits)? or Do we want to give admins absolute power over everything? (because they like the taste? i don’t really know what a good reason is, but then i’m not exactly sitting on the fence…) Josh -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
