-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Inconsistent E2EE iconography #26327
Comments
@weeman1337 The "!" inside a circle is indeed the correct icon. Some context...
@nadonomy and @janogarcia Do you have any objections? |
Thanks @americanrefugee . Closing the issue because it is not a bug. |
@weeman1337 Sorry, reopening as this raises a different question. We'll discuss this internally on Thursday |
That explains things, thank you. You've probably considered this, but
what action is the user supposed to take? Inform the other user that they've an unverified device? I'm surprised it's using the generic icon and not a red version of the new verified icon, which makes it hard to distinguish between some error vs the trust state at a glance. |
On the action that the user should take:
On using a generic icon vs. a red version of the verified icon:
To clarify... You had difficulty distinguishing between a green checkmark in a multi-pointed star (verified) vs. an "!" inside a red circle (error)? Or rather you weren't expecting the change of icon altogether? |
Wait, what? That's not how this works! I mean, I guess one could do that, but really the other user should cross-sign their new device/session! ....if that client supports cross-signing.... which leads me to the fact that this will just keep being red
With only a single generic error icon, I know have difficulty distinguishing between an "actual" error where something in this room is not working vs it "just" being that the other person has been trying out some client that can't cross-sign yet. (Partially, I've been trained by the last 6 years of using Element/Riot what the shield icon means, so I'm not sure how heavy to weigh this argument.) |
Some context @HarHarLinks ...
Does that make sense / help? |
Steps to reproduce
Outcome
What did you expect?
What happened instead?
An issue is that
to show that a message couldn't be sent
Operating system
arch
Browser information
Firefox 117
URL for webapp
develop.element.io
Application version
Element version: 22f2b1f-react-54fa9a572e1c-js-02ca5c78cf4e Olm version: 3.2.14
Homeserver
matrix.org
Will you send logs?
Yes
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: