Closed (fixed)
Project:
Mollom
Version:
6.x-2.x-dev
Component:
User interface
Priority:
Normal
Category:
Task
Assigned:
Unassigned
Reporter:
Created:
10 Nov 2013 at 18:09 UTC
Updated:
24 Apr 2014 at 17:13 UTC
Jump to comment: Most recent, Most recent file

Comments
Comment #1
eshta commentedRegarding the privacy policy link, there is a big difference between being required to inform visitors of data privacy and "you should inform visitors". The Mollom service agreement makes it sound pretty clear that users do need to be informed of data privacy. I would think this wording should be keep stricter.
http://mollom.com/service-agreement-free-subscriptions
Comment #2
sunWhile that is true, I intentionally decreased the "severity" of that note.
Mollom's ToS only instruct you to do it, because if your site operates in a legal territory that has strict(er) data privacy laws (such as in the EU), then you're legally required to inform your visitors about the privacy of their data anyway.
At the same time, no such data privacy laws exist in e.g. the US.
In the end, failure to educate your site visitors about how their data will be used or processed is not Mollom's problem. As a site owner who accepts user input in any way (including any other third-party services), it is your own responsibility to educate site visitors about the privacy of their data, not Mollom's.
It starts with trivial things like Cookies, and it ends in (all) third-party web services that may process your data (in any way).
In short, all Mollom's ToS are doing is to "remind" you of a legal detail that is (too) often overlooked by site owners. Since that legalese vastly depends on the territory that your website operates in, it is safe to weaken the language from "you are required" to "you should".
Lastly, also note that this entire privacy policy output + option was introduced only ~2 years ago, and since it's a theme-affecting change, we had to disable it by default for all existing sites.
Comment #3
Bojhan commentedThis looks like a good improvement, I don't see much opportunity to cut it further, perhaps the last checkbox doesn't need the description if you mix it in with the label.
Comment #4
sunThanks for your UX review, @Bojhan! :)
Regarding the last checkbox, I agree that the description appears to be unnecessary.
I explored some rewordings already, but ultimately wondered whether we need to negate that checkbox...? E.g.:
...or perhaps even negate its technical meaning (and default it to off instead of on):
The default value is to only log warnings and errors.
The intended optional value proposition is to allow users (rather developers) to see all of Mollom's interactions in Drupal's log messages (as opposed to errors only).
To perhaps clarify, I refused to add that [advanced] option in the past. But as of ~2013, the general need for having this data for debugging purposes vastly decreased, as the Mollom service became much more accurate; only warnings and errors are of interest now.
The option only exists to "increase trust" for technically versed users, allowing them to inspect what Mollom is or was doing. By default, only warnings and errors are logged. When testing mode is enabled (the checkbox right above), all messages are logged by default.
Comment #5
eshta commentedI think the use of "only" without any context above is what makes it sound difficult. What about something like:
[ ] Limit logs to warnings and errors
Disable to see all Mollom interactions in logs
Similarly, Sun, your suggestion also makes sense and I think the description is actually less confusing as well:
[ ] Record all Mollom interactions in log messages
The default value is to only log warnings and errors.
Or perhaps a combination of the two?
Comment #6
eshta commentedI've combined these UX ideas with the concept of an advanced configuration screen. A number of features in development (and some ready) for the next tagged release merit the addition of such an area.
I should also add some test cases for these new configuration parameters to make sure they work as advertised. Will be adding that in soon, but wanted to see if there were opinions/feedback on this approach first.
Also adding a screenshot. Note that the random quote in the last option is no longer there in the code....
Comment #8
eshta commentedOK - should at least pass the existing tests now....
Comment #9
eshta commentedActually - test cases are added in with the functionality for the specific features so no need to add them here on the UX patch.
Comment #10
eshta commentedJust made a few minor fixes found when working on the version 6 backport.
Comment #11
eshta commentedUpdating to include backport to D6.
Comment #12
eshta commentedIn development branches for next release.