Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    System -> Advanced : Miscellaneous -> Gateway Monitoring confusing

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved 2.3-RC Snapshot Feedback and Issues - ARCHIVED
    6 Posts 5 Posters 2.4k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • awebsterA
      awebster
      last edited by

      For option "State Killing on Gateway Failure", the Checkbox, default checked,  states "Flush all states when a gateway goes down"
      The description reads:
      The monitoring process will flush all states when a gateway goes down if this box is not checked. Check this box to disable this behavior.

      So if the box IS checked (default), are states are flushed, or not when a monitored gateway goes down?  This is confusing.
      If there are several gateways being monitored, and the states are flushed, does this affect all gateways?

      Suggested description:
      The monitoring process will flush all states when a gateway goes down if this box is checked.  Uncheck this box to disable this behavior.

      –A.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • D
        doktornotor Banned
        last edited by

        Perhaps 2.3 would be good time to refactor all those WTF "tick this to disable that" checkboxes to enable/disable select.

        State Killing on Gateway Failure - Enabled/Disabled - about 10000% better.

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • jahonixJ
          jahonix
          last edited by

          @doktornotor:

          State Killing on Gateway Failure - Enabled/Disabled - about 10000% better.

          Count me in
          Usability in a GUI isn't as trivial as some think. And once your mind is stuck to a certain pattern you don't see the forest for the trees anymore.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • H
            hda
            last edited by

            Yes, in graphic programming use "radio-buttons" (only 1 option valid) i.s.o. a "check-box" (withalotoftext) :)

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • awebsterA
              awebster
              last edited by

              I agree, the language should be clear: "check to enable".
              There are numerous instances where the text is confusing because of a negation (not) or an exception (unless).

              Keeping in mind that pfSense is used all over the world, and while a multilingual GUI would be cool, requires a huge translation effort; to date only Turkish and Portuguese (Brazil) appear as choices.  In the interim, simple direct english would be an asset, and it would make the translation effort that much easier for the people tackling the job.

              I had the opportunity to read the book Globish by Robert McCrum, describing the work done by Jean-Paul Nerriere of IBM in developing a simple English.  I would think that a product aimed at a world market might want to embrace some of those ideas.
              More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globish_(Nerriere)

              –A.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • L
                LFCavalcanti
                last edited by

                @awebster:

                I agree, the language should be clear: "check to enable".
                There are numerous instances where the text is confusing because of a negation (not) or an exception (unless).

                Yeah, I think part of the problem is that the guys coding don't have the same POV as the users, not blaming them, just a fact.

                What I see in pfSense is some logic flaws in the text, the description fits the effect on the code behind the UI, but not what the user understands.

                @awebster:

                Keeping in mind that pfSense is used all over the world, and while a multilingual GUI would be cool, requires a huge translation effort; to date only Turkish and Portuguese (Brazil) appear as choices.  In the interim, simple direct english would be an asset, and it would make the translation effort that much easier for the people tackling the job.

                The other part of the problems comes from how the translation is done. You have to install Github, fork the main branch, clone to your local disk, usr xgetext or in my case Poedit to correctly edit, generate the translation and compile it, then commit, do a pull request, sign the CLA. Some people might want to do the translation, but don't want to go through all these steps.

                pfSense doesn't have a huge amount of text in it's UI, the PTBR translation I'm revising now will take probably a week to do… alone.

                –

                Luiz Fernando Cavalcanti
                IT Manager
                Arriviera Technology Group

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • First post
                  Last post
                Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.