Hi,
>
> Alan:
> I see: you click the "+", then you have a dialog:
>
> +-----------------------------------------+
> | Add custom privacy setting |
> +-----------------------------------------+
> | Please select your setting type |
> | +-------------------------------------+ |
> | | Administrative account | |
> | +-------------------------------------+ |
> | | MAC Spoofing | |
> | +-------------------------------------+ |
> | | Network configuration | |
> | +-------------------------------------+ |
> | | Windows camouflage | |
> | +-------------------------------------+ |
> +-----------------------------------------+
>
> I propose exactly the way the "Add account" is in GNOME 3.18.
>
> It's basically your proposal with one less click because all the list
> is displayed. I don't think that it would cover the other window.
>
Can you confirm that this[0] is the dialog.
>
> Makes sense too. As a programmer, I see Gtk.Popover are not a subclass
> of Gtk.Window as Gtk.Dialog are, but now that I read you I see it makes
> few difference for the user.
>
Maybe Gtk.Dialog should be a subclass of Gtk.Window; they discuss the UI
this way on their HIG :)
>
> Because it's the standard way to select a boolean option.
>
If they read the same and have two opposing states then I see no
difference between the two, on paper.
However, in use, two separate paths ('Yes/No' buttons) are different
than two connected states ('On/Off' switch).
And this is how the other dialogs work from what I see; switches seem
used for simpler things that don't need explanation.
Also, I find it difficult to create natural language text that leads up
to an 'On/Off' switch; asking 'Yes/No' questions is really easy. Maybe
sajolida can help with this.
With this said, I am not intimately familiar with the logic behind GNOME
designations, so it may be that because there are opposing options (path
or state) that a switch is the interface element to use even though a
question might be more natural. If this is the case, then no worries :)
Wordlife,
Spencer
