> > In the short term, when we have a handful of data types, with one service, > > we > > can think of this in terms of "customizing defaults". (Even so there are > > pain points that that causes, which we've discussed elsewhere.) >
> > We will very soon be at the point of opt-in services (contacts, reading > > list, > > …), and a growing forest of things that sync. As Mark put it, that doesn't > > really fit the "checkbox model". I'm trying to (amongst other things) get > > us > > to address that discontinuity. > > I'm not following you here, to be honest. Maybe I'm just not that smerht. I > really only can design for the MVP and v2. Anything beyond that has so > little specificity that it is beyond my ability to imagine the UX. The point is: will an every growing list of checkboxes, tucked away in some 3rd tier UI be the best we can do? Shouldn't we be more 1st tier? Can't we use a better metaphor than a checkbox? I think these services are certainly more important than a simple checkbox could convey.
_______________________________________________ Sync-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/sync-dev
