On 11/26/2014 02:03 PM, Josef Reidinger wrote: > On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:54:37 +0100 > Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 11/26/2014 09:27 AM, Josef Reidinger wrote: >>> On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:48:41 +0100 >>> Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >>>> >>>> c) Server is running and “start when booting” is not marked >>>> Ask the user if they would like to stop the server now. >>>> If they decide to keep it running, reload the server. >>> >>> Why? If server running then simply reload it. Or do you think it is >>> common use case to run old server and wait with reload to next boot? >> >> That's exactly the point which started the whole usability discussion. >> Currently when you configure the server as disabled ("manually" radio >> button) and you click "ok", the running server is stopped. We got a >> bug report about it and I agree is unexpected to me. But turns out >> that is implemented in that way to meet expectations from some users. >> >> So the point in (c) is not whether to keep server running with the old >> configuration (as you can see in (b) that's never an option). The >> point is whether disabling should mean stopping the currently running >> service. >> > > I am probably not common user. If I uncheck "start server during boot", > then I really do not except to stop already running service.
Neither do I. Neither do the QA guys according to https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1QeVFspHYGMPtEZtkVkOO_WsoEoTNrtIlDvyLOJkqrTE/edit#gid=0 But that was the implemented behaviour. And it was by user request. The good point about Ken's proposal is that it does not only target common user (let's assume for a while that we can consider ourselves as such) but it tries to target all users (even those with a strange mindset that leaded us to this point). >>> >>> [...] >>> >>> As you may guess from my comments I do not prefer to ask user to >>> something unless it is really critical like that computer will >>> explode or if beer getting warm. >> >> I'd normally agree. But the problem with this approach is that several >> fields and field combinations has proved to be understood in different >> ways by different users. Ken's solution was to add extra checks. I >> think it makes sense even if I usually dislike pop-ups. > > Still I think we maybe just need to separate action buttons ( like > start/stop service ) from configuration options ( like start during > boot ). This should help with confusion without pop-ups. Do you mean in a completely different section (with "section" I mean those at the left like "start-up" or "forwarders")? Would it be an option to add them in the same row that other actions like "cancel" or "ok"? -- Ancor González Sosa YaST Team at SUSE Linux GmbH -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
