Re: [Usability] online/offline design

[Luis Villa <luis villa gmail com>]

On 5/19/05, Matthew Thomas <mpt myrealbox com> wrote:
> Luis Villa wrote:
> >
> > On 5/19/05, Calum Benson <Calum Benson sun com> wrote:
> >...
> >>There are also cases where failing (more or less) silently is preferable
> >>too, of course... I'm sure we've all been annoyed by mail programs that
> >>pop up alerts during their periodic background checks to tell us that
> >>they can't connect to the mail server, when we really couldn't care
> >>less.
> >
> > Absolutely. I'd /hope/ that the dialog I proposed elsewhere in the
> > thread would only be deployed in response to user-initiated actions-
> > having evo remind me over and over again that my network is down is of
> > course a bug, no matter how nice/informative the dialog is.
> >...
> 
> In that case, this would be HIG-compliant --
>   __________________________________________
> |::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::|
> |                                          |
> | (-)  Foo could not bar, because there is |
> |      no network connection.              |
> |                                          |
> |                 ( Try Again ) ((  OK  )) |
> |__________________________________________|
> 
> -- where Foo is the name of the program, and bar-ing is what you just
> asked it to do.

Deliberate omission of a link to the network config stuff, or
oversight? If the first, why?

Luis