Launchpad itself

Bug #772754
Comment #6

Comment 6 for bug 772754

Revision history for this message

Gary Poster (gary) wrote on 2011-05-12: Re: [Yellow] [Bug 772754] Re: After better-bug-notification changes, list of bug subscribers is confusing

On May 12, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Matthew Revell wrote:

> As a user of Launchpad, I favour the portlet approach; particularly if
> you can make a long list scroll inside the portlet.
>
> I don't want Launchpad to make me work to get the information I need. I
> want to be able to glance around the page and see the information I need
> to work with this bug. Who will see changes to this bug report ranks
> pretty highly for me.

Cool. Thank you for the vote and explanation.

>
> I have a couple of wording suggestions.
>
> Under "May be notified", I'd suggest changing "To be sure that some
> receives notifications" to "[[Subscribe someone directly]] if you want
> to be sure they'll receive notifications about this bug."

Yes, nice. Thank you.

> This is an aside: I wonder if "Remove direct subscription" might better
> describe what actually happens than "Unsubscribe". If you make that
> change, I'd suggest changing the explanatory text directly below it to
> read, "Removing your direct subscription may not stop all email about
> this bug. [[Mute this bug]] to make sure you never receive email about
> it."

I vacillate on this one. I like "Unsubscribe" for being succinct and easy-to-parse; I like "Remove direct subscription" for its precision and clarity. However, the improvement in the explanatory text that you gave might push me towards the latter.

That said, I have three concerns with the improved explanatory text.

First, it's longer than what I had before. Moreover, I'm about to suggest making it longer still.

Second, while I agree that muting should be encouraged before "see details" (+subscriptions), I think that "see details" might be the right action for some people.

Third, as we've been having to deal with lately in other contexts, if you have a team subscription, and the team has a contact address that will email you (such as a mailing list, in a common case), you will still get emails via the team subscription. We can't provide per-person control in that case because we don't send the pertinent emails. So...it's not quite never. We could check for the problem and only mention it if it is pertinent, but if someone later adds a team subscription with a contact address that is a mailing list to which you are subscribed, that breaks "never". Therefore, I'm thinking we need to clarify this, unfortunately...or go back to the vaguer approach I had before.

Adjusting the text for my second and third concern, I get this: "Removing your direct subscription may not stop all email about this bug. [Mute this bug] to make sure you never receive email about it (except potentially from team mailing lists), or [see details of all your subscriptions to this bug]."

If I had to choose now, I'd choose "Remove direct subscription" and the longer, but clearer, text. I don't have to choose now, but we do have to choose soon. :-)

> Oh, and I fully support the proposal outlined in the mocked-up bug
> report.

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Matthew!

Gary

On May 12, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Matthew Revell wrote:

> As a user of Launchpad, I favour the portlet approach; particularly if
> you can make a long list scroll inside the portlet.
> 
> I don't want Launchpad to make me work to get the information I need. I
> want to be able to glance around the page and see the information I need
> to work with this bug. Who will see changes to this bug report ranks
> pretty highly for me.

Cool.  Thank you for the vote and explanation.

> 
> I have a couple of wording suggestions.
> 
> Under "May be notified", I'd suggest changing "To be sure that some
> receives notifications" to "[[Subscribe someone directly]] if you want
> to be sure they'll receive notifications about this bug."

Yes, nice.  Thank you.

I vacillate on this one. I like "Unsubscribe" for being succinct and easy-to-parse; I like "Remove direct subscription" for its precision and clarity.  However, the improvement in the explanatory text that you gave might push me towards the latter.

That said, I have three concerns with the improved explanatory text.

First, it's longer than what I had before.  Moreover, I'm about to suggest making it longer still.

Second, while I agree that muting should be encouraged before "see details" (+subscriptions), I think that "see details" might be the right action for some people.

Third, as we've been having to deal with lately in other contexts, if you have a team subscription, and the team has a contact address that will email you (such as a mailing list, in a common case), you will still get emails via the team subscription.  We can't provide per-person control in that case because we don't send the pertinent emails.  So...it's not quite never.  We could check for the problem and only mention it if it is pertinent, but if someone later adds a team subscription with a contact address that is a mailing list to which you are subscribed, that breaks "never".  Therefore, I'm thinking we need to clarify this, unfortunately...or go back to the vaguer approach I had before.

Adjusting the text for my second and third concern, I get this: "Removing your direct subscription may not stop all email about this bug.    [Mute this bug] to make sure you never receive email about it (except potentially from team mailing lists), or [see details of all your subscriptions to this bug]."

If I had to choose now, I'd choose "Remove direct subscription" and the longer, but clearer, text.  I don't have to choose now, but we do have to choose soon. :-)

> Oh, and I fully support the proposal outlined in the mocked-up bug
> report.

Excellent.

Thank you very much, Matthew!

Gary