"This message will be sent to..." checkbox reverse intuition?

I suspect this may be a FAQ, but I have yet to see it as such, so I ask
this as politely as I can:

The large “This message will be sent to…” title that is show in a ticket
update window is followed by a “(Check boxes to disable notifications
to the listed recipients)” message.

Is this not the reverse of typical human intuition, given the title? Would
not the list of recipients be checked by default…and a user should
uncheck them if they don’t want said recipients to be notified?

I’m running RT 3.4.2.

How might I correct this?

-Matt

Is this not the reverse of typical human intuition, given the title? Would
not the list of recipients be checked by default…and a user should
uncheck them if they don’t want said recipients to be notified?

Yep. there’s an open ticket with a discussion on how that workflow works
and some ideas for how to redo it to make it really slick and easy to
use. I don’t have the # on me at the moment, though.

At 8/21/2005 06:51 PM, Jesse Vincent wrote:

Is this not the reverse of typical human intuition, given the
title? Would
not the list of recipients be checked by default…and a user should
uncheck them if they don’t want said recipients to be notified?

Yep. there’s an open ticket with a discussion on how that workflow works
and some ideas for how to redo it to make it really slick and easy to
use. I don’t have the # on me at the moment, though.

Ok, thanks for the note.

I’m curious: for short-term purposes, why not just make the checkbox mean
that a the recipient will get sent the email, and then mark all the
recipients with a check (in the box) by default? Would this not address
the backward-presentation problem for the short term (while deferring to a
possibly more-robust workflow system later)?

This seems like it might be a very simple perl change/MOD (or whatever RT
cools the very cool mechanism to overlay changes to the system in the
"local" directory). Is it?

(I suppose it’s not, since this answer seems to straightforward…I suspect
someone has already proposed this and there’s more to it then that?)

-Matt