sajolida@???:
> 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.
Quickly, a new suggestion : having a 4 states label.
Keep "Persistence" on top label, and
=> when you arrive :
[..................] [disabled] (in dark grey)
=> when you write, after a 500 milisecond pause for example
[..................] [checking O] (in light grey with a loading wheel)
=> once it's checked
[..................] [enabled] (in green)
or
[..................] [wrong passphrase, type again] (in red)
>
>>> 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.
>
--
tchou
