This is exactly what I was thinking. An infobar is the right choice in my opinion. Having a modal dialog on startup for those who use this switch regularly due to issues, should not be suddenly have a *really annoying* modal dialog every time they start their browser.
An infobar, on the other hand, is informative enough to make people be aware that their are using it and a "learn more" link to how to turn it off (in case they were once instructed to do so for support purposes and did not turn it off since then) would be the best solution here. ☆PhistucK On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 07:49, Finnur Thorarinsson <fin...@chromium.org>wrote: > I wonder... should we show an infobar on startup when the sandbox is > disabled? > > > On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 21:38, John Abd-El-Malek <j...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> We disable --single-process and --in-process-plugins on release Google >> Chrome builds to avoid the support headache that it causes. I think we >> should do the same for --no-sandbox. >> >> On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 8:22 PM, Darin Fisher <da...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >>> After reading the WebGL blog post today, and following the link to the >>> wiki, it struck me as fairly *bad* that we are telling people to disable the >>> sandbox. A good number of folks are going to disable the sandbox and forget >>> that they had ever done so. >>> >>> Once we can support WebGL in the sandbox, what will we do? It would be >>> nice if we could somehow restore the sandbox automatically. But renaming >>> --no-sandbox doesn't seem like a great choice, and it isn't a scalable >>> solution for other things like this that come up in the future. >>> >>> Perhaps --enable-webgl should instead implicitly disable the sandbox >>> today so that "tomorrow," when WebGL just works, folks won't have to change >>> any command line options to restore sandbox functionality. I can see a >>> counter argument that people should have to explicitly opt-in to disabling >>> the sandbox, but I'm not sure that out-weighs the cost of having a good >>> number of dev channel users running *permanently* without the sandbox. >>> >>> Was this idea considered? Any other ideas? >>> >>> -Darin >>> >>> -- >>> Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com >>> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >>> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> >> >> -- >> Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com >> View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: >> http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev >> > > -- > Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev > -- Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
