[Design] Re: No Data Loss Proposal, nee Conflict Resolution Proposal

[Phillip J. Eby]

At 10:09 AM 1/26/2007 -0800, Mimi Yin wrote:
>I'm wondering if that's obvious to the user?

Probably not the first time; it might be perceived as meaning simply that 
other people sent changes.  i.e., it might be thought that you have to 
always approve changes that other people send, which might lead to careless 
application of those changes.


>I'm tempted to replace 'overwrite local changes' with 'overwrite your
>changes', except that, that's not always true, because somebody
>else's changes may have been applied either via an update or sharing
>edits.
>
>Let's keep it to "There are 5 pending changes." and see what kind of
>confusion that incurs before tweaking the wording?

How about "There are 5 conflicting changes pending"?  :)

Anyway, it was just a suggestion.  I tend to be a little paranoid about 
informing users about data loss, because I've seen too many failure modes 
where people develop a habitual response pattern (like clicking "OK" on 
everything), but the current state is certainly suitable for a user who 
knows how Chandler is *supposed* to work and already understands its 
sharing model.