On Fri, Dec 11, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Glen Murphy <g...@chromium.org> wrote:
>>> As for the info bar/modal dialog: I've been thinking for a bit, and I'm
>>> not sure this is enough. We have plenty of data that shows users often
>>> leave browsers open for a very long time. The main risk is that someone
>>> sets the flag, starts their browser, trys out the new cool feature, and then
>>> leaves the browser window open...for a long time. The next time they start
>>> it they'll see the warning again, but the period of time in between (that
>>> they're more vulnerable) could be non-trivial.
>>
>> I think that the combo of factors involved here makes this enough of an edge
>> that we can Not Worry About It.
>> I think an infobar at startup is not annoying enough, and as Darin says, we
>> often have other infobars to show then, which is problematic.
>
> I don't mind the idea of a blocking dialog on startup. We only avoid
> dialogs because they're annoying; in this case we *actually* want to
> annoy you. The dialog could also make the user confirm their choice,
> rather than being a notification.
How annoying? Since we already "know" that people habitually mash the
default button, the dialog could say "Running with --no-sandbox is
dangerous. Can I keep the sandbox enabled?", then "OK" is the good
thing, and "Cancel/No" is the bad thing.
[BTW, I hope it's obvious that we might not want to be as annoying if
we disable the sandbox as part of an experimental feature. A little
annoying, but since experimental features correlate with browsers
crashing, we should be careful not to alienate developers who are
testing the experimental feature...]
[[And now I'm waiting for someone to suggest the
--no-really-no-sandbox-i-like-being-insecure flag to suppress the
dialog :-).]]
-scott
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
