[Sparkle] Where to put profiling?

[Andy Matuschak]

> On 22/12/2007, Andy Matuschak <andy at andymatuschak.org> wrote:
> I'm integrating Sparkle+'s profiling code
>
> Is this optional? If I never want the profiling code, can I turn off  
> the checkbox?

Yes, certainly. It's opt-in, in fact, since you have to do some stuff  
server-side to make use of it anyway.

> Is there a way to always have it on by default? I wouldn't confuse  
> users with this decision, ever. Rather, I'd leave it off or on by  
> default (depending on what you're sending), and give users that care  
> about such things the option of turning it off before the first (or  
> second) check.

Are you asking if it's possible to make the check box in the prompt on  
by default, or if it's possible to not ask the user for permission at  
all but to just send the data anyway? The users are being asked, in  
this case, immediately before the first check. The answer to the first  
question is certainly; the answer to the second question is undecided  
in my mind at the moment. At least, I don't know if Sparkle will  
officially support sending the info without permission; you can always  
modify the framework.

> but I think the UI Tom implemented ( http://img141.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture2by1.png) 
>  for asking if an anonymous system profile can be included is sub- 
> optimal.
>
>  Can't see this. Always redirects me to the home page of ImageShack.  
> BTW -- could you perhaps not use ImageShack? They plastered my whole  
> screen with ads for iPhone special offers that I supposedly won, and  
> other ad pop-up windows :-(

Sorry—it's because of the parenthesis at the end there. Here's the  
image on not-imageshack: http://www.screenshots.cc/view_image/cc9601810/Picture%202.png

> What about this: The very first update check transmits no  
> information. Instead of a "transmit system profile" checkbox, it has  
> a "Privacy..." button, which pops up information about what is  
> transmitted as part of this anonymous system profile, and offers to  
> not send it.

Interesting. So it looks like this? http://www.screenshots.cc/view_image/8b87b1913/Picture%204.png

(the original idea, for reference, looks like this: http://www.screenshots.cc/view_image/a41011956/Picture%203.png 
  )

> That way, people who care about stuff like this can turn it off  
> before any information gets transmitted, but people who don't care  
> don't get confused. Mind you -- I'm talking about anonymous system  
> profiles here. After all, if it's info that can't be associated with  
> one user, the user shouldn't really mind, and the only people for  
> which we offer turning this stuff off are those that worry about  
> their privacy more than average.

I agree—I don't know that I care about the class of users that is  
really paranoid about non-associable information. The Privacy...  
button idea is just a little misleading because the body of the dialog  
is asking for permission to check for updates on startup, not to send  
profiling information. But it's probably okay.

What do the rest of you think?

- Andy Matuschak
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.andymatuschak.org/pipermail/sparkle-andymatuschak.org/attachments/20071223/218703d0/attachment-0001.htm