On 5/19/05, Matthew Thomas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Luis Villa wrote: > > > > On 5/19/05, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >... > >>There are also cases where failing (more or less) silently is preferable > >>too, of course... I'm sure we've all been annoyed by mail programs that > >>pop up alerts during their periodic background checks to tell us that > >>they can't connect to the mail server, when we really couldn't care > >>less. > > > > Absolutely. I'd /hope/ that the dialog I proposed elsewhere in the > > thread would only be deployed in response to user-initiated actions- > > having evo remind me over and over again that my network is down is of > > course a bug, no matter how nice/informative the dialog is. > >... > > In that case, this would be HIG-compliant -- > __________________________________________ > |::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::| > | | > | (-) Foo could not bar, because there is | > | no network connection. | > | | > | ( Try Again ) (( OK )) | > |__________________________________________| > > -- where Foo is the name of the program, and bar-ing is what you just > asked it to do.
Deliberate omission of a link to the network config stuff, or oversight? If the first, why? Luis _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
