On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Nico Weber <[email protected]> wrote:
> I thought there were two separate issues here: > > 1.) The specific webgl switch. Darin suggested that it should imply > --disable-sandbox until webgl works in the sandbox. This way, people > don't have to add --disable-sandbox explicitly and will automatically > be safe once webgl works in the sandbox. > I agree that this is a separate issue and that doing this would probably be a good idea. 2.) If / how --enable-sandbox should uglify the UI. Your list is > missing this suggestion by vandebo: > > """Instead of telling people to use --no-sandbox on the blog, we could > tell them to use a new flag, --disable-sandbox-until MM/DD/YYYY. It > could limit the maximum amount of time the sandbox was disabled, to > say two weeks. After that, the sandbox would automatically be > reenabled.""" > > (which could be in addition to the other stuff, if people think it's a > good idea) > I definitely think this would need to be in addition to other (noisy) UI. Personally, I think having stuff like --enable-webgl implying disabling the sandbox is a better plan though since it's hard to predict when the feature will be complete and a user won't delete the --enable-webgl flag bug forget to delete the --disable-sandbox-until flag. > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:43 PM, Peter Kasting <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> On Wed, Dec 30, 2009 at 3:22 PM, Jeremy Orlow <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> > >>> I just got back from vacation and would like to take action on this. I > >>> read through the thread, but I don't see any sort of consensus on what > to > >>> do. Here are the options as I see them: > >>> 1) Modal dialog box. Bad for debugging, will probably just be clicked > >>> through by users, and not very good for users who leave the browser > open for > >>> long stretches of time. I'd say it's not a good solution. > >> > >> I thought it was clear that this was the consensus best idea (see > Darin's, > >> Glen's, my posts for example). > > > > Glen didn't support it (only didn't object) and you and Darin were the > only > > ones that supported it. A couple of us thought it was a bad idea. I > don't > > see how this is anything close to a consensus. > > > >> > >> I don't see how it's "bad for debugging" (Viet-Trung's objection makes > >> absolutely no sense to me),and we don't care about the edge case of > users > >> who both use --no-sandbox and never restart (this works well enough even > for > >> restarting once every several weeks, which takes care of practically > >> everyone). Clicking through is enough of an annoyance to serve our > >> purposes, and this is trivially simple to add (simpler by far than all > other > >> options including an infobar). > >>> > >>> 2) Info bar. This seems like one of the more popular options at the > >>> moment. > >> > >> This is a bad idea, we shouldn't do it. It's not as annoying as a modal > >> dialog, it has problems with clashing with other infobars on start. > >> Basically it's inferior to a modal dialog in every way. > > > > FYI: The ui-leads (in an off-list thread) seem to like Evan's initial > patch > > that goes this route. > > > >>> > >>> 3) Add some other persistent UI like the incognito spy guy, an annoying > >>> theme (that overrides whatever you have selected), or something else. > This > >>> seems like a pretty good option to me, but there hasn't been too much > >>> discussion around it. What type of UI would be the best? Is this a > good > >>> option? > >> > >> No, we shouldn't do this. Way too much effort and code (think about > >> making this work on three OSes and with custom themes), we just want > >> something trivial. > > > > Themes are cross platform. Though I agree that this route may be more > > trouble than it's worth. > >>> > >>> 4) Add some warning to the new tab page. Once again, no one's really > >>> thought about this seriously. Any thoughts? > >> > >> Again, inferior to the other options. Doesn't work well for users who > >> don't start with the NTP (or ones who never see it -- I don't, I don't > use > >> ctrl-t or the new tab button, I use middle-click and alt-enter). > > > > Fair enough. > > > >> > >> If you're planning to implement something, please implement the dialog. > > > > I'd like to hear what others think as well. > > > > -- > > Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] > > View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: > > http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev > -- Chromium Developers mailing list: [email protected] View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe: http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
