Install FAQ: Pls Clarify, Make Easier to Find & Revamp Install Buttons!
Three things about three minor install FAQ answers from the WA file: common_installation_issues.pdf
"Common Alerts During the installation process, there are three alerts that may appear.
•The same version of a file exists
•A newer copy of a file exists
•An older version of a file exists
When any of these alerts display, you can choose Yes to All to proceed with the installation. This should not cause any problems."
This has driven me nuts from upgrade one... I will [for now] trust the info I found in the PDF (thankfully not a long one), but if you could make this a flying banner, or, Ooh, a pop up hint inside Extension Mgr when the offending boxes appear! Anything more obvious, maybe even in more than one place would likely help many of your customers at least save time by not having to open several pages and a couple PDFs.
I do like how it says "should" not cause any problems! [NOT!]
Can you clarify & perhaps do better than "should not cause any problems?"
If you can't,
Can you add a button so during install users can choose "No to All Newer" to not replace newer copies and "Yes to All Older" to replace Older Copies. I say this because I have been in the middle of clicking "No" hundreds of times for newer copies and then been thrown several sporadic "older copies" that I would rather replace than run into "possible" problems!
Also, following the previous comment...
~We've got Web Standards... I'd like WA to lead the way in Extension Standards! ;-)
i.e. Can you make all of the dialog boxes (where I've been clicking "yes" or "no") the same dimensions so the buttons don't move? I know the file names are different lengths, but to avoid ANY danger of leaving an "older copy," I usually go through the same box many times, wanting to quickly give the same answer (simple click w/o moving the cursor), only to find the button moves slightly up or down due to the file name length. That makes it even more aggravating. I know I am being overly cautious, but I don't want to be "that guy" who has the theoretical "possible" problems!
Thanks!
~Riish
