On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:20:21 +0100 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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")? No. > > Would it be an option to add them in the same row that other actions > like "cancel" or "ok"? Yes, possible, but better from my POV will be to have it under specific area with buttons under sections on left, which do not change when switching section. Josef -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] To contact the owner, e-mail: [email protected]
