On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 15:20:21 +0100 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@suse.de> wrote:
On 11/26/2014 02:03 PM, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:54:37 +0100 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@suse.de> wrote:
On 11/26/2014 09:27 AM, Josef Reidinger wrote:
On Tue, 25 Nov 2014 18:48:41 +0100 Ancor Gonzalez Sosa <ancor@suse.de> 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_WsoEoTNrtIlDvyL...
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: yast-devel+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: yast-devel+owner@opensuse.org