Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 42604
Extremely misleading wording in "Enable JRE" warning
Last modified: 2005-05-02 17:17:15 UTC
The warning http://www.pangea.at/~ralph/enablejre.png appears up to 15 times in sequence (maybe even more often) with exactly this wording. To see how a not all that unexperienced user interprets this program behaviour, please see issue http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=41511 The bug for the real fix (warning should not appear more than once) has been closed, see: http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=37020 At least the wording of this warning should be changed as a measure to reduce the risk of data loss for users (as explained in my comment in #37020). No user should have to guess that a dialog has to be clicked away 15 times. If he or she has to, please do tell him (or her). I suggest adding a simple sentence like "If this warning appears repeatedly, please klick OK util it goes away" Maybe even the "Cancel" button can be removed, because it does not. Even if Sun does not ship StarOffice without Java, there is a real risk of a user inadvertedly disabling/messing up the java installation, so this is also important for the sold product.
Of course it should not be "OK" in the sentence above, but "No" or "Cancel". The "Restart Required" dialog has the same problem BTW: http://www.pangea.at/~ralph/restartrequired.png
I agree, naive users will think it's an infinite loop.
Accepting. Will research if a change in text can be made to lessen the pain here.
Liz->All: Adding a text like "If this warning appears repeatedly, click 'OK' until it no longer appears." is a possibility, but it is putting the responsibility onto the user and assumes that users actually read the messages (which they generally don't, but, hey, after the 3rd time in a row maybe they do ;-) ) The only correct solution is a technical/code solution that prohibits the error messages from reappearing consecutively without any further user-interaction in between. In that respect, this issue is a duplicate of #37020# *** This issue has been marked as a duplicate of 37020 ***
closing