Bugzilla

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #32)
> Review of attachment 9124549 [details] [diff] [review]:
> > +## Recipient pills fields.
> > +## LOCALIZATION NOTE(confirmRemoveRecipientRowTitle2): %S will be replaced with the field name.
> > +confirmRemoveRecipientRowTitle2=Remove %S Addresses
> 
> Maybe the original was better, just Remove %S?

Can we try to agree about the relationship between the button and the alert, and the exact purpose of the alert?
- Remove button has two functions:
  - Remove this addressing field (easily undoable for the field, so we do NOT warn on empty field)
  - Remove all addresses (if any) in this field (sometimes not undoable, so we warn about *addresses*)
So the alert is *only* about the danger of losing addresses, *not* to confirm the obvious and no-risk intention of hiding the field.
Imo, the title "Remove BCC" is not reflecting that reality, and really misses the point of danger.
Should be: "Remove BCC addresses" (without a question mark, for consistency with other TB confirmation alerts)

> >  confirmRemoveRecipientRowBody=All the addresses in the %S field will be removed. Do you want to proceed?
> Maybe 
> Are you sure you want to remove the %S field and with all the %S addresses?

That's ungrammatical, 1 word too much or 1 word missing (if in doubt, please remove "and").

I suggest: "Remove all %S addresses from this message?"

Rationale:
This warning only appears when there are addresses in the field, so by design, it is NOT a warning about removing the field itself, which isn't harmful in any way. Asking the user if he really wants to remove the field itself is wrong in two ways:
- Of course user wants to remove the field! There's a tooltip now "Remove {$type} field" and user clicked on that button on purpose (I maintain that accidentally clicking this button is impossible; maybe misunderstanding the button effect, yes). Confirming an obvious intention does not make sense. Note that remove already has a notion of deleting. We don't say "hide" on the tooltip.
- There's no danger in removing the *field* itself (easy to undo). So why are we complicating the question by suggesting that there's danger in the harmless part ("are you really sure that you want to remove this field??")?? The danger is in removing unsaved addresses, only.

So we shouldn't mention the field. Plus:
- Sorry to insist, but the introductory "Are you sure you want..." is not adding any valuable information, it falsely suggests big dangers, and it just distracts from the main message: Remove BCC addresses - or not?
- Long questions are more likely to be ignored, and they will become even more annoying over time. I bet this will end up as a case for "Never ask me this question again"...

So I am still suggesting to keep this alert sweet and simple (KISS):
```
[Remove BCC Addresses]
Remove all BCC addresses from this message?

[Cancel] [Remove]
````
Just my 2 cents.

(In reply to Magnus Melin [:mkmelin] from comment #32)
> Review of attachment 9124549 [details] [diff] [review]:
> > +## Recipient pills fields.
> > +## LOCALIZATION NOTE(confirmRemoveRecipientRowTitle2): %S will be replaced with the field name.
> > +confirmRemoveRecipientRowTitle2=Remove %S Addresses
> 
> Maybe the original was better, just Remove %S?

Can we try to agree about the relationship between the button and the alert, and the exact purpose of the alert?
- Remove button has two functions:
  - Remove this addressing field (easily undoable for the field, so we do NOT warn on empty field)
  - Remove all addresses (if any) in this field (sometimes not undoable, so we warn about *addresses*)

So the alert is *only* about the danger of losing addresses, *not* to confirm the obvious and no-risk intention of hiding the field.
Imo, the title "Remove BCC" is not reflecting that reality, and really misses the point of danger.
Should be: "Remove BCC addresses" (without a question mark, for consistency with other TB confirmation alerts)

> >  confirmRemoveRecipientRowBody=All the addresses in the %S field will be removed. Do you want to proceed?
> Maybe 
> Are you sure you want to remove the %S field and with all the %S addresses?

That's ungrammatical, 1 word too much or 1 word missing (if in doubt, please remove "and").

I suggest: "Remove all %S addresses from this message?"

Rationale:
This warning only appears when there are addresses in the field, so by design, it is NOT a warning about removing the field itself, which isn't harmful in any way. Asking the user if he really wants to remove the field itself is wrong in two ways:
- Of course user wants to remove the field! There's a tooltip now "Remove {$type} field" and user clicked on that button on purpose (I maintain that accidentally clicking this button is impossible; maybe misunderstanding the button effect, yes). Confirming an obvious intention does not make sense. Note that remove already has a notion of deleting. We don't say "hide" on the tooltip.
- There's no danger in removing the *field* itself (easy to undo). So why are we complicating the question by suggesting that there's danger in the harmless part ("are you really sure that you want to remove this field??")?? The danger is in removing unsaved addresses, only.

So we shouldn't mention the field. Plus:
- Sorry to insist, but the introductory "Are you sure you want..." is not adding any valuable information, it falsely suggests big dangers, and it just distracts from the main message: Remove BCC addresses - or not?
- Long questions are more likely to be ignored, and they will become even more annoying over time. I bet this will end up as a case for "Never ask me this question again"...

So I am still suggesting to keep this alert sweet and simple (KISS):
```
[Remove BCC Addresses]
Remove all BCC addresses from this message?

[Cancel] [Remove]
````
Just my 2 cents.