On Wed, 2011-02-09 at 09:38 +0200, Marius Vollmer wrote: > ext Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]> writes: > > > On a more serious note though, forbidding the user to do things he'd > > want to do is a bad design concept ;-=) > > Yes, I agree wholeheartedly. I have, unfortunately, mostly given up the > fight against the moronic requests for these anti-features, but maybe I > can find some motivation again. > > > There is a line between being helpful by reminding the user that > something unexpectedly bad might happen when he goes forward, and > outright preventing him or her from going forward. > > There are a number of examples in the package manager: > > - If you don't have 50% of battery or are plugged in, we don't allow > you to update the OS. > > - If you don't have 20% of battery or are plugged in, we don't allow > you to install 3rd party applications. > > - If you are on a cellular connection, we don't allow you to download a > OS update beyond a certain size. >
Why on earth? I'd would expect to be able to do so since I'm paying for flat rate data. A simple warning should be enough if downloading large amounts of data is needed. > - If there is a newer version of the store client, you must install it > before being able to use the store. (You can't even use the store > via its web site in this case since the browser redirects to the > store client). > > I see this anti-feature creep mostly as a disease that has befallen our > product managers. They turn into control-freak zombies. I hope I am > overreacting. You are not -Timo > _______________________________________________ > MeeGo-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev _______________________________________________ MeeGo-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.meego.com/listinfo/meego-dev
