GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 615742
Save password dialog is confusing, isn't pretty
Last modified: 2013-12-15 16:28:13 UTC
The current save password dialog (displayed via GtkInfoBar) reads as follows: 'Would you like to store the password for <user name> in <domain address>? [Not now] [Store password]' I've attached a screenshot of the dialog. There are a few things about this that make it difficult to understand: * The word 'store' is used instead of the more conventional 'save' * The use of the user name is potentially confusing and isn't necessary * Suggests that the password is being stored *in* the website - again, potential here for confusion * 'Not now' option - alludes to future behaviour without specifying what that behaviour will be. If not now, when?! * Lacks an obvious way to close the dialog. Again, this is unconventional. There are some odd aesthetic things about the display of the dialog too: the central justification of the text doesn't align well with other interface elements and is contrary to convention (see the use of GtkInfoBar elsewhere). A quick review of what other browsers do. Firefox: 'Do you want Firefox to remember the password for <user name> on <domain address>?' [Remember] [Never for this site] [Not now] [x] Chromium: 'Do you want Chromium to save your password?' [Save] [Never for this site] [x] Both indicate what it is that is doing the saving. Firefox reproduces the unnecessary reference to user name and domain. There are unnecessary buttons in the Firefox version: the close button and Not Now button do the same thing. Firefox also uses 'remember' instead of 'save'. Chromium's is the best, imo: it is the shortest, simplist, and easiest to understand. I'd recommend adopting the same formula in Epiphany: 'Do you want Epiphany to save your password?' [Save] [Never for this site] [x]
Created attachment 158716 [details] Screenshot of the password dialog
Do you have updated comments on this? Perhaps we can review it now.
(In reply to comment #2) > Do you have updated comments on this? Perhaps we can review it now. Heh, I'd actually forgotten about this one. :) I can't think of anything new; I'd be happy to review a patch of course.
*** Bug 619379 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 676118 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***