Matthew, you wrote: >> ami_nakata and Peter Whittaker, your proposed rule >> about never opening windows automatically is unworkable.
Peter's threefold 'PUGIT' division of screen real-estate does confer a kind of 'holy ground' status upon what he identifies as the zone for 'what I am doing, things under my control', and I find his model helpful, but I didn't propose a general rule. My objection was much more narrow and specific: > The 'abolish the icon and bubble, and instead open > the updates window directly' behavior introduced as > part of this change just feels very disrespectful to > me.... I do not want any "phone home" process to > unilaterally open windows on *MY* computer.... I think it's important here to distinguish between two kinds of windows: (1) Those that are part of an integrated, user-initiated 'dialog' with the user that helps him accomplish the work he's currently engaged in. Call these 'on-task windows'. (2) Those arising unexpectedly, from seemingly autonomous system actions that have no temporal relevance to the user's current work flow or present intentions. Call these 'off-task windows'. Users react differently to these two types of windows, obviously. And even more, the negative reaction which often results from the interruption that 'off-task windows' present is usually heightened when the appearance of the 'off-task window' was effectively initiated by some other computer. In that case, especially, I think users are even more likely to become annoyed. I do agree with the implication of Peter's helpful 'PGUIT' model that the best way to avoid annoying the user in this is to employ an explicit notification area, and to use that for all 'off-task' messages except those of the most dire warnings of imminent catastrophe. It just seems so glaringly obvious to me that, as Peter wrote: > “The Vista 'pop it up again' approach was discussed > and derided. Rightly. But the proposed system is a > step on the same path.” If you feel you have to have a pop-up to make sure that users who won't respond properly to a notification icon and bubble nevertheless keep their systems up to date, I'd say make it as important as you like, emphasize it with color or sound or whatever, but (a) do that only the first time it appears, and (b) give users a “Don't show this message again, just present a notification icon” check box, perhaps with a second-step confirmation required, or even a mandatory mini-tutorial about how that icon works if you feel that strongly about it. But don't do what Microsoft, Adobe, Sun and so many others do re their updates: Don't demand, don't insist, don't require, don't try to force-feed, don't persistently interrupt. Or if you feel you absolutely have to have such interruptions, such 'off-task windows', as the default to protect users who won't respond to any less emphatic a message, then at least give those of us who will the opportunity to easily avoid your interruptions. Include a way to turn them off in the pop-up window itself. I guess that's the crux for me: Please don't persistently interrupt my work. Is that really too much to expect? -- [Jaunty] Update Notifier icon would provide useful status information https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/332945 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
