[Tails-ux] Greeter design proposal rationale

Sup,

>
> Alan:
> I published a 1st draft of the rationale of our design proposal for the
> greeter at:
>
> https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/greeter_revamp_UI/design_rationale_phase1
>

Holy shit, this is a ton of work; kick-ass, G! Thanks for this!!

>
> I made a few changes:
>
> - I added a "more info" (aka help) link that was missing.
> - I moved the reassuring text in the appropriate section "Settings"
> - I moved Language above Storage as I think we decided
>

I dig the first two changes. The Language location change, which seems
to be based on ticket #9922[0], doesn't seem to have a link to the
discussion/logic that its built on, is there one?

This[1] discussion details some thoughts on the placement of the
'Language' section. The summary of language auto-detect on the first
iteration is:

• Auto-detect language preference every session, deemphasizing the
'Language' section in 'Settings'.

The summary of *no* language auto-detect on the first iteration is:

• Present the guided configuration step for 'Language'[2] every session
unless saved, deemphasizing the 'Language' section in 'Settings'.

Also, this[3] comparison shows the two options side-by-side displayed
with the understanding that we are placing the 'Language' section on top
of the 'Storage' section because we aren't including a language
auto-detect in this first phase.

However, with all of this said, I think we should have the 'Language'
section ordered after the 'Settings' section, since all people using
this would have no issue locating the 'Language' section on the first
screen, at least I am having trouble envisioning a case where they
would.

Anyways, I will play with the spacing on these and the examples in the
rationale page you made, since some things jumped alignment. No
decisions need to wait on these changes.

>
> Also a few questions:
>
> - may I have the source of Tails.Greeter with the explanations?
>

Yes, I did zip it for you previously, I think, but in case I screwed
that up, here[4].

>
> - should we have icons for the ActionBar buttons?
>

No. Mainly because it is hard to effectively visualize 'Restart',
'Tour', and 'Start Tails' into iconic representations of their concepts.
Considering 'Start Tails', the 'Play' and 'Computer' icons are not as
precise as they cold be, which really leaves the standard stand-by I/O
icon such as on a Mac.

However, if we do include icons on our buttons, I encourage only
settling on icons that only have the one meaning. For example, the
'Play' icon works because it is like saying "Run", which is what
programs tend to do, but also doesn't work because it means "Play", like
a video, and therefore isn't as precise of an iconic representation as
it could be; this icon wouldn't make the cut.

>
> - do we want to display both the "Configure Encrypted Storage" button
> and the unlock box?
>

Yes, if the threat model *can* be defended against by displaying these
two options side-by-side. Doing so also lessens development time,
enhances the user experience, and reduces the likelihood of bugs by not
having to create different states of the greeter for varying storage
settings.

However, if there *is* a technical way to accurately discover existing
storage, then displaying both buttons side-by-side might not be
effective to that extent, though doing so would still provide the
development and usability benefits touched on above.

Wordlife,
Spencer

[0]: https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/9922
[1]: https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-ux/2015-June/000437.html
[2]:
https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-ux/attachments/20150819/091204b8/attachment-0001.png
[3]: Greeter.Language.png
[4]:
https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-ux/attachments/20150807/5afd1b5e/attachment-0001.zip