Misleading presentation of the source's codename


#1

Hi,

I was totally misleaded trying to use SD as a source, as the two choices are confusing :
. Use existing codename (I thought, at first, this was the generated codename written above, although this is exactly NOT the case)
. Use new codename (which has the same mallow color as the refresh button : I thought, at first, this was supposed to generate a new codename, which is the exact opposite) :
http://source.demo.securedrop.club/generate?l=en_US

In terms of UX, I think it would be much more clear with those options :
. Use your existing codename (or previoulsy generated codename)
. Use this new codename

My2c


#2

This was indeed very confusing ! It is fixed now and you can see how it looks in the i18n demo page. Is it better ?

Note: contrary to the demo page which runs the stable SecureDrop release, the i18n demo page runs the latest development release.


#3

thanks !

I have only checked EN & FR versions, but wouldn’t it be clearer with :
. Use this new codename (instead of “Use new codename”, as it could be confusing)
. Utilisez ce nouveau nom de code (as “Utiliser un nouveau nom de code” is actually confusing)

?


#4

Hum, you’re right. Now that there is no ambiguity, it is confusing.


#5

For the record, the proposed fix is at : https://github.com/freedomofpress/securedrop/pull/2768