Hi,
On Thu, 29 Oct 2015 02:50:44 -0700
Spencer <spencerone@???> wrote:
Add privacy settings
--------------------
> > Alan:
> > Do you have a proposal?
> >
> > I'm waiting for your feedback.
> >
>
> Here[0] is how your thought fleshed out.
>
This is more clear, but was not what I was thinking of. I thought:
Close/Cancel button
|
v
+-----------------------------------------+
| Add custom privacy settings |X| |
| |
+ +-------------------------------------+ |
| | Administrative account | |
+ +-------------------------------------+ |
| | MAC Spoofing | |
+ +-------------------------------------+ |
| | Network configuration | |
+ +-------------------------------------+ |
| | Desktop camouflage | |
+ +-------------------------------------+ |
+-----------------------------------------+
On click:
Back button Close/Cancel button
| |
v v
+-----------------------------------------+
| |<| Add custom privacy settings |X| |
| |
+ +-------------------------------------+ |
| | MAC Spoofing | |
+ | | |
| | Spoofing MAC addresses hides the | |
| | serial number of your network cards | |
| | from local networks. | |
| | _______ | |
| | MAC Address Spoofing: |_on|___| | |
| | | |
+ +-------------------------------------+ |
+-----------------------------------------+
> Other OS '+/-' dialogs showcase the setting type settings at the
> destination, as opposed to the origin. However, given the amount of
> content on the destination dialog, there isn't enough room. The origin
> dialog seems to be the most suitable place for these settings.
>
I'm not sure about your dialog that combines the "select setting" and
the "configure setting" function, thus my proposal above.
> The size is significantly larger, so, popover dialogs with arrows won't
> be as clear as popover dialogs without arrows, i.e., hover isn't as
> clear as click (and it doesn't allow for removal of settings from Check
> & Go screen). Besides, all dialogs that look the same function the
> same, or at least should, and the function on 'Universal Access' is
> enjoyable and clear.
>
OK, let's go for that at least to add a new setting. To edit an already
added setting, I still think the popover might be better.
> Administrative Account
> -----------------------
> This setting has a second state when an administrative account has been
> configured.
>
> I am unsure of any security issues with displaying the password, or
> providing an option to, so I did not include it; are there any?
>
> 'Log Out' might not be the best task, or label, but it seems reasonable.
>
No it doesn't make sense at all. Perhaps "Remove" or "Disable".
> MAC Spoofing
> -------------
> Are there any more options that can, or need to be, shown here?
>
I don't think so.
> Is there any issue with showing the real and spoofed MAC addresses?
>
What is the interest? One can't show the spoofed address before it is
spoofed, and the spoof will happen *after* the greeter.
> Network Configuration
> ----------------------
> Can, and should, we add more detailed configuration here?
>
> The second option (the OR) is closest to what we have now but I am
> unclear as to the function of the "Configure bridge, firewall, or proxy
> settings" option. The selecting of it prompts the network configuration
> flow after the Greeter but the first screen of the flow displays the
> same question posed here at the Greeter, so I feel it isn't needed,
> especially since there is no explanation of what to expect next.
>
We really need the 3 options, including "Connect directly to the Tor
network", as we want to have a way to connect directly without being
bored by questions. There is a problem, that we are in the process of
solving by improving the interface that will come *after* the greeter.
> Desktop Camouflage
> -------------------
> We can easily stack more camouflages (themes) in the list here. Getting
> the themes isn't so easy it seems. It is important to try and
> future-proof the experience.
>
OK
> Batch Add Settings
> -------------------
> I am not in favor of discoverable things when it comes to operation, in
> this case, running Tails. However, it seems reasonable to expect people
> to be familiar with the experience of selecting multiple items in a list
> at the same time. Using this to our benefit, we can avoid using check
> boxes :)
>
We can add a select mode, as in e.g. Gnome Documents.
Cheers
