Unify strings for click-to-play, blocked plugins and outdated plugins.

Unify strings for click-to-play, blocked plugins and outdated plugins.

Screenshots: http://www.dropmocks.com/mNkqe

BUG=47731
TEST=none

Committed: http://src.chromium.org/viewvc/chrome?view=rev&revision=69520

[Bernhard Bauer, 2010-12-17 00:35:27]

please review.

[Peter Kasting, 2010-12-17 01:41:55]

LGTM, not that you asked me

http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd
File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources....
chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:4285: Click to run the <ph
name="PLUGIN_NAME">$1<ex>Flash</ex></ph> plug-in
Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two shouldn't. 
Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an opinion.

http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
File chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html (right):

http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html:53: cursor: crosshair;
This crosshair cursor has never felt right at all to me.  Seems like
"cursor:pointer;" would be better.

[Bernhard Bauer, 2010-12-17 02:03:50]

On 2010/12/17 01:41:55, Peter Kasting wrote:
> LGTM, not that you asked me

Thanks for the review, then.

>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd
> File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources....
> chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:4285: Click to run the <ph
> name="PLUGIN_NAME">$1<ex>Flash</ex></ph> plug-in
> Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two shouldn't. 
> Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an opinion.

My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this one is
more a command (like how menu items don't have periods). 

>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
> File chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html (right):
> 
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
> chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html:53: cursor: crosshair;
> This crosshair cursor has never felt right at all to me.  Seems like
> "cursor:pointer;" would be better.

cevans changed it to the crosshair to make it more visible to the user that this
will run the plug-in.

[cevans, 2010-12-17 02:10:42]

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM, <bauerb@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2010/12/17 01:41:55, Peter Kasting wrote:
>
>> LGTM, not that you asked me
>>
>
> Thanks for the review, then.
>
>
>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd
>
>> File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
>>
>
>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources....
>
>> chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:4285: Click to run the <ph
>> name="PLUGIN_NAME">$1<ex>Flash</ex></ph> plug-in
>> Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
>> shouldn't.
>> Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
>> opinion.
>>
>
> My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this one
> is
> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods).
>
>
>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
>
>> File chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html (right):
>>
>
>
>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
>
>> chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html:53: cursor: crosshair;
>> This crosshair cursor has never felt right at all to me.  Seems like
>> "cursor:pointer;" would be better.
>>
>
> cevans changed it to the crosshair to make it more visible to the user that
> this
> will run the plug-in.


An experiment. I also don't like the way it looks, FWIW.

Now that we have a fully clickjack-proof click-to-run in the "block" mode,
perhaps the correct balance is to put it back. Or if we thought it could be
made to look nice, there's always a CSS custom cursor which could be a take
on the puzzle piece graphic.


Cheers
Chris


>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/
>

[Glen Murphy, 2010-12-17 02:18:08]

I would rather find some other icon - I, and the other designers,
thought the crosshair was a bug.

For the strings, I would prefer it if "Click to run the flash plug-in"
became "Click to run this Flash plug-in"; neither is technically
correct, but I can't find a concise way of saying "Click to run this
instance of the Flash plug-in".


On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Chris Evans <cevans@google.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM, <bauerb@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2010/12/17 01:41:55, Peter Kasting wrote:
>>>
>>> LGTM, not that you asked me
>>
>> Thanks for the review, then.
>>
>>
>>
>>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd
>>>
>>> File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
>>
>>
>>
>>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources....
>>>
>>> chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:4285: Click to run the <ph
>>> name="PLUGIN_NAME">$1<ex>Flash</ex></ph> plug-in
>>> Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
>>> shouldn't.
>>> Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
>>> opinion.
>>
>> My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this one
>> is
>> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods).
>>
>>
>>
>>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
>>>
>>> File chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html (right):
>>
>>
>>
>>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
>>>
>>> chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html:53: cursor:
>>> crosshair;
>>> This crosshair cursor has never felt right at all to me.  Seems like
>>> "cursor:pointer;" would be better.
>>
>> cevans changed it to the crosshair to make it more visible to the user
>> that this
>> will run the plug-in.
>
> An experiment. I also don't like the way it looks, FWIW.
> Now that we have a fully clickjack-proof click-to-run in the "block" mode,
> perhaps the correct balance is to put it back. Or if we thought it could be
> made to look nice, there's always a CSS custom cursor which could be a take
> on the puzzle piece graphic.
>
> Cheers
> Chris
>>
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/
>
>

[jeffreyc, 2010-12-17 02:31:48]

Generally LGTM.

Do you think "The XYZ plug-in is not allowed" will confuse some people? E.g.
they forgot that they set it to "Block" in their content settings. Is that
the only way it would be blocked? Should we try to explain that?

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Glen Murphy <glen@chromium.org> wrote:

> I would rather find some other icon - I, and the other designers,
> thought the crosshair was a bug.
>
> For the strings, I would prefer it if "Click to run the flash plug-in"
> became "Click to run this Flash plug-in"; neither is technically
> correct, but I can't find a concise way of saying "Click to run this
> instance of the Flash plug-in".
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Chris Evans <cevans@google.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM, <bauerb@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2010/12/17 01:41:55, Peter Kasting wrote:
> >>>
> >>> LGTM, not that you asked me
> >>
> >> Thanks for the review, then.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd
> >>>
> >>> File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources....
> >>>
> >>> chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:4285: Click to run the <ph
> >>> name="PLUGIN_NAME">$1<ex>Flash</ex></ph> plug-in
> >>> Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
> >>> shouldn't.
> >>> Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
> >>> opinion.
> >>
> >> My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this
> one
> >> is
> >> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods).
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
> >>>
> >>> File chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html (right):
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
> >>>
> >>> chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html:53: cursor:
> >>> crosshair;
> >>> This crosshair cursor has never felt right at all to me.  Seems like
> >>> "cursor:pointer;" would be better.
> >>
> >> cevans changed it to the crosshair to make it more visible to the user
> >> that this
> >> will run the plug-in.
> >
> > An experiment. I also don't like the way it looks, FWIW.
> > Now that we have a fully clickjack-proof click-to-run in the "block"
> mode,
> > perhaps the correct balance is to put it back. Or if we thought it could
> be
> > made to look nice, there's always a CSS custom cursor which could be a
> take
> > on the puzzle piece graphic.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Chris
> >>
> >>
> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/
> >
> >
>

[Bernhard Bauer, 2010-12-17 03:21:00]

Okay, it seems no one really likes the crosshair, so I changed it back
to pointer.

On Fri, Dec 17, 2010 at 02:31, Jeff Chang <jeffreyc@chromium.org> wrote:
> Generally LGTM.
> Do you think "The XYZ plug-in is not allowed" will confuse some people? E.g.
> they forgot that they set it to "Block" in their content settings. Is that
> the only way it would be blocked? Should we try to explain that?

When plug-ins were previously blocked, we'd say "Plug-in not allowed"
as well, and that didn't cause too much confusion.

> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:18 PM, Glen Murphy <glen@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> I would rather find some other icon - I, and the other designers,
>> thought the crosshair was a bug.
>>
>> For the strings, I would prefer it if "Click to run the flash plug-in"
>> became "Click to run this Flash plug-in"; neither is technically
>> correct, but I can't find a concise way of saying "Click to run this
>> instance of the Flash plug-in".
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Chris Evans <cevans@google.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 6:03 PM, <bauerb@chromium.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On 2010/12/17 01:41:55, Peter Kasting wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> LGTM, not that you asked me
>> >>
>> >> Thanks for the review, then.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources.grd
>> >>>
>> >>> File chrome/app/generated_resources.grd (right):
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/app/generated_resources....
>> >>>
>> >>> chrome/app/generated_resources.grd:4285: Click to run the <ph
>> >>> name="PLUGIN_NAME">$1<ex>Flash</ex></ph> plug-in
>> >>> Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
>> >>> shouldn't.
>> >>> Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
>> >>> opinion.
>> >>
>> >> My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this
>> >> one
>> >> is
>> >> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods).
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
>> >>>
>> >>> File chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html (right):
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/diff/1/chrome/renderer/resources/click...
>> >>>
>> >>> chrome/renderer/resources/click_to_play_plugin.html:53: cursor:
>> >>> crosshair;
>> >>> This crosshair cursor has never felt right at all to me.  Seems like
>> >>> "cursor:pointer;" would be better.
>> >>
>> >> cevans changed it to the crosshair to make it more visible to the user
>> >> that this
>> >> will run the plug-in.
>> >
>> > An experiment. I also don't like the way it looks, FWIW.
>> > Now that we have a fully clickjack-proof click-to-run in the "block"
>> > mode,
>> > perhaps the correct balance is to put it back. Or if we thought it could
>> > be
>> > made to look nice, there's always a CSS custom cursor which could be a
>> > take
>> > on the puzzle piece graphic.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > Chris
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/
>> >
>> >
>
>

[Peter Kasting, 2010-12-17 07:02:20]

On 2010/12/17 02:03:50, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
> > Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
shouldn't. 
> > Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
opinion.
> 
> My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this one is
> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods). 

Jeff/Glen, could one of you find an appropriate tech writer to make a call here?
 It seems like there ought to be someone who will know for sure what we're
supposed to be doing here.

[jeffreyc, 2010-12-20 18:56:11]

I think having periods on all three seems reasonable, since they're all full
sentences -- right? Glen or Cole?

(screenshots at http://www.dropmocks.com/mNkqe)

On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, <pkasting@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2010/12/17 02:03:50, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
>
>> > Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
>>
> shouldn't.
>
>> > Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
>>
> opinion.
>
>  My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this one
>> is
>> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods).
>>
>
> Jeff/Glen, could one of you find an appropriate tech writer to make a call
> here?
>  It seems like there ought to be someone who will know for sure what we're
> supposed to be doing here.
>
>
> http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/
>

[glen, 2010-12-20 18:58:33]

They behave like buttons and/or look like labels, so IMHO they should
not have periods.


On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Jeff Chang <jeffreyc@chromium.org> wrote:
> I think having periods on all three seems reasonable, since they're all full
> sentences -- right? Glen or Cole?
> (screenshots at http://www.dropmocks.com/mNkqe)
>
> On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, <pkasting@chromium.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 2010/12/17 02:03:50, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
>>>
>>> > Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
>>
>> shouldn't.
>>>
>>> > Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
>>
>> opinion.
>>
>>> My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this one
>>> is
>>> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods).
>>
>> Jeff/Glen, could one of you find an appropriate tech writer to make a call
>> here?
>>  It seems like there ought to be someone who will know for sure what we're
>> supposed to be doing here.
>>
>> http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/
>
>

[jeffreyc, 2010-12-20 21:33:03]

Go with what Glen said :)

On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:58 AM, Glen Murphy <glen@google.com> wrote:

> They behave like buttons and/or look like labels, so IMHO they should
> not have periods.
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Jeff Chang <jeffreyc@chromium.org>
> wrote:
> > I think having periods on all three seems reasonable, since they're all
> full
> > sentences -- right? Glen or Cole?
> > (screenshots at http://www.dropmocks.com/mNkqe)
> >
> > On Thu, Dec 16, 2010 at 11:02 PM, <pkasting@chromium.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> On 2010/12/17 02:03:50, Bernhard Bauer wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > Nit: Seems like either this should have a period, or the other two
> >>
> >> shouldn't.
> >>>
> >>> > Not sure which is better... maybe Glen or a tech write would have an
> >>
> >> opinion.
> >>
> >>> My reasoning behind this was this the others state a fact, while this
> one
> >>> is
> >>> more a command (like how menu items don't have periods).
> >>
> >> Jeff/Glen, could one of you find an appropriate tech writer to make a
> call
> >> here?
> >>  It seems like there ought to be someone who will know for sure what
> we're
> >> supposed to be doing here.
> >>
> >> http://codereview.chromium.org/5857007/
> >
> >
>