Alan wrote:
>> I would prefere to remove the toggle button: enabled by default
>> (because I think it's the main use case).
>>
>> - If there is persitence in the usb stick : the field (with
>> autofocus). If the user don't want to enable the persistence, he does
>> not fill the field.
>> - if there is no persistance in the usb stick : nothing.
>>
> That could be an option too. Do you think it would be clear enough that
> leaving the field empty is the way not to enable persistence.
I agree with this concern.
>> And I suggest again to move the "Read only" option elsewhere (in
>> advanced options). I don't know anybody using it.
>>
> We already dismissed that option because there are real usecases (e.g.
> needing to have access to its keyrings but wanting to keep the option
> to shutdown Tails by removing the USB stick without loosing data).
Having "real usecases" for some option is not a good argument for having
it on the first screen. There are serious use cases for all the options
in the advanced screen as well. The question here is rather a question
of priority: we need to find a balance between having as little things
on the first screen as possible, but still cover the vast majority of
use cases.
I'm pretty sure that the "read-only" option is less popular than the
"Windows camouflage" for example, or the "Tor bridge mode".
The other day I read this article:
http://developerblog.redhat.com/2014/08/27/5-ux-tips-for-developers/
And regarding "prioritizing the best impact", I think that the read-only
option fits in the category of "few users frequently" at most. And for
me that goes on the "advanced" screen.
My only doubt is that it would be an option related to persistence that
would appear in other place than the "Enable persistence" options... But
I believe that this slight argument against this proposal is
counterbalanced by the advantage of getting a more straightforward
screen for the vast majority of uses.
--
sajolida
