Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Refuse/Accept text upon startup #120

Open
DavidMOliver opened this issue Aug 8, 2017 · 6 comments
Open

Refuse/Accept text upon startup #120

DavidMOliver opened this issue Aug 8, 2017 · 6 comments

Comments

@DavidMOliver
Copy link
Collaborator

The Store version of ObscuraCam has a long, ominous-sounding message upon installation that requires the user to accept or "refuse". In 4.0.0 alpha 1 (build 39), this is now a pop-up, and on my Moto X device, the only text is "You Agree To:", and then the accept/refuse choices.

What are we really trying to say here? Can this be converted to an "on-boarding" type message that requires only "next" or "done"?

@n8fr8
Copy link
Member

n8fr8 commented Aug 8, 2017

I thought I removed all of that in this build. What pop-up did you see?

Way back when, we thought you would need to have this, in-app, but the trend has been that you really only do when someone is signing up for a server/cloud-based service, where data is stored etc. It can then be just a regular "click here to read the full terms", etc.

@DavidMOliver
Copy link
Collaborator Author

Here's what I see
screenshot_20170808-103508

@n8fr8
Copy link
Member

n8fr8 commented Aug 8, 2017

A strange. That's a bug!

@DavidMOliver
Copy link
Collaborator Author

OK, just verified same on a tablet running A4.3. Also on 4.3, I did not get a request to delete the exiting (non-obscured) file after creating the obscured one. Has that open been removed for changed/ This happened on A6.0 device too.

@n8fr8
Copy link
Member

n8fr8 commented Aug 8, 2017

I removed the request to delete the existing file, since it was confusing, and unnecessary (the user can delete it themselves, and we aren't meant to be protecting local physical device access). Let's discuss more - it was more of a prompt for discussion than a final decision. This is also the kind of usability question we want to bring to Witness.

@DavidMOliver
Copy link
Collaborator Author

I, too, see it as an "overboard" feature, but agree that we should discuss with Witness.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants