ObjectWeb Consortium
Search ObjectWeb Mail Archive: 

Advanced Search - Powered by Google

Mail Archive Home | jawe List | Febuary 2004 Index

<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Re: [jawe] RE: Misleading exclamation marks in success messages!!!

Title: Message
thanks for your suggestion regarding exclamation marks!
Regarding saving of XPDL packages that contain errors, JaWE allows saving of such documents only if they are UNDER_TEST. The reason we don't allow saving of documents UNDER_REVISON is that we assume that they were in production (so they were valid), and then withdrawn to make some improvements. Of course, we will re-think if this is the right approach - probably both kinds of document should be allowed to be saved despite of errors.
Sasa Bojanic,
Together, Serbia
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, February 14, 2004 8:39 PM
Subject: [jawe] RE: Misleading exclamation marks in success messages!!!

Good Day JaWE Folks,
I've been using JaWE to prepare some sample workflows for distribution with the Open Business Engine (http://www.openbusinessengine.org), and I have a couple of suggestions to make:
- I found the style of using triple exclamation marks with success messages somewhat misleading and unnecessary.  The presence of an exclamation mark is generally associated with some surprising or unexpected condition that the user should be particularly aware of, usually requiring attention and manual resolution.  Using exclamation marks to report success causes 'cognitive dissonance' and makes the user worry that they've done something wrong.  Triple exclamation marks are rude and unnecessary, and when used in an error report it's like shouting at the user: "Look at this stupid mistake you've made, you idiot human!!!".  I'd like to suggest that in the case of an error or warning a single exclamation mark be used, and that the normal and success messages be terminated normally with a full stop.
- I found it disturbing that JaWE wouldn't let me save an XPDL package that contained errors, even after having set the PublicationStatus field to "UNDER_REVISION".  The purpose of that element value is to indicate work-in-progress, which may well be incomplete.  Forcing the user to correct all the errors before you permit them to save their work is perceived unhelpful and obstructive by the user.  I'd like to suggest that you allow packages which are UNDER_REVISION to be saved even if they contain errors.  An XPDL engine should refuse to instantiate such a workflow anyway, so there's no danger in this approach.

Adrian Price
Technical Director
Zaplet, Inc.
Office [UK]: +44 [0]1903 215284
E-Mail: aprice@xxxxxxxxxx
Web: http://www.zaplet.com

<--  Date Index  --> <--  Thread Index  -->

Reply via email to:

Powered by MHonArc.

Copyright © 1999-2005, ObjectWeb Consortium | contact | webmaster.