On 2013/08/06 (Aug), at 5:24 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 06 Aug 2013 00:01:43 Robert Hailey wrote: >> How about avoiding the scary words, default to true (they already d/l it >> from our server, right?) thusly: >> >> [x] Report installation failures over HTTPS > > No way. > > Explicit, prior, informed consent.
I think it could be worded better, but isn't that already explicit (as opposed to the act on installing implying they want it to work), prior (before install), informed consent? Consider this wording: "[x] Send a report if installation fails (using HTTPS), so we can fix the problem." Surly if they are conscious enough to use Freenet and in such a sensitive environment that they cannot risk the *potential* outgoing https connection, then they will know to uncheck it. I think it'd be more patronizing to presume they *don't* know what this means. So too, I find it unlikely that one would execute freenet (or it's installer) if they do not sufficiently trust the Freenet developers that the report would not contain personal/identifiable information (as your wording lists the contents). Are you concerned that someone could (for a particular network) manufacture an installation failure (downloading java?) as a way to detect attempts at installing Freenet? >>> If you click yes, the Freenet installer will tell us whether your install >>> of Freenet succeeded > We only need feedback for a representative sample. To me, it is far more unsavory, dangerous, and uninteresting to collect positive samples (e.g. "success"!) than to automatically report a bug by default. > People do read. Most people have a fairly advanced reading age. Fine, but why waste their time with a paragraph (or modal dialog) when it only takes a sentence to accurately convey the idea? Why optimize for the case that their life with end if we signal that they can't setup the software, when we can optimize for our present reality? -- Robert Hailey
