为什么谷歌智能锁对话只是有两种方式];绝不＆QUOT;和＆QUOT;保存＆QUOT;没有＆QUOT;否] ;? [英] Why Google Smart Lock Dialog just has two options "never" and "save" without an "no"?

问题描述

智能锁弹出的对话框只是有两个按钮，一个是从来没有，等是保存密码。如果用户不小心点击从不，则SMARTLOCK将被禁用，直到他使用的Chrome应用程序中删除了永远不会保存密码项，这是一个懒人用户的方式步骤太多，而且很可能是这个用户可能无法使用像SMARTLOCK永远

The Smart Lock popup dialog just has two buttons, one is "never", and other is "save password". if a user accidentally click "never", the SmartLock will be disabled until he use a chrome app to delete the "never saved password" item, which is way too many steps for a "lazy user" , and it is very likely that this user may not use the SmartLock like forever

在我们看来，如果用户不想要拯救他的密码SMARTLOCK只有一次，它极有可能，他将单击从不，因为对话只是有两个按钮....他们中很少有人知道，如果他们的任意位置单击否则在屏幕他们可以关闭该对话框....一旦他们点击从来没有，他们失去享受SMARTLOCK的机会;（所以我们建议如果谷歌能提供的对话框中，从来没有，不3个按钮， 保存密码，这将是更容易为用户了解他们在做什么。

In our opinion , if a user doesnt want to save his password to SmartLock just once, its very likely that he will click "never" since the Dialog just has two buttons.... Few of them know if they click anywhere else in the screen they can just dismiss the Dialog.... and once they click never, they lose the chance to enjoy SmartLock ;( So we suggest if google can offer 3 buttons for the Dialog, "never", "no"," save password ", which will be easier for user to understand what they are doing.

推荐答案

我的智能锁团队在谷歌工作，我们讨论这个对话框的措辞个月，在实验室中广泛研究的用户交互非常仔细，并采样数百万在现场的应用程序和网站的对话框中用户行为的监控存储，下降，取消利率。请注意，在从不选择只能选择退出有问题的应用程序，并不会影响其他无关的应用程序。

I work on the Smart Lock team at Google and we debated the wording of this dialog for months and extensively studied user interaction very carefully in the lab and have sampled millions of user actions on the dialog in live apps and websites to monitor save, decline, and cancel rates. Note that the Never selection is only an opt-out for the app in question and does not affect other unrelated apps.

一些来自用户研究和反馈的调查结果：

A few of the findings from user research and feedback:

• 在要求用户在实验室里，如果他们不想选择的选项，他们可以做什么（从不或保存密码），多数指出，他们会外点击或点击后退按钮，这是既定取消的Andr​​oid UI设计模式的操作。所以，我们没有发现的取消行动可发现一个问题，如果强烈preferred。

• When asking users in the lab what they might do if they did not want to select either option (Never or Save password), most noted that they would tap outside or tap the back button, which are the established cancel actions in Android UI design patterns. So we did not find an issue with discoverability of the cancel action if strongly preferred.

添加第三个选项对话框对话框显著复杂（视觉和认知），并增加了大量的困惑和犹豫的用户，因为它们必须处理的区别的从不和不，谢谢，而不是使两个选项之间的一个简单的决定。

Adding a third option to the dialog significantly complicates the dialog (both visually and cognitively) and adds substantial confusion and indecision for the user, in that they have to process the difference between Never and No thanks, rather than making a simpler decision between two options.

在实践中，我们发现，用户preference保存密码很少改变：如果用户拒绝一次，他们会选择铺天盖地如果以后再次提示再次下降，甚至一段时间后。在实践中，这意味着一个不，谢谢（不是现在）选项presented最坏可能的结果：用户不进入保存的凭证状态（自动登录），并也多次提示和中断，每当他们再次登录到应用程序。

In practice, we found that user preference to save a password very rarely changed: if user declined once, they would overwhelming choose to decline again if prompted again later, even after some time. In practice, this means that a No thanks (not now) option presented the worst possible outcome: user does not get into the saved credential state (with auto sign-in) and was also repeatedly prompted and interrupted whenever they sign in to the app again.

因此​​，目前的实现仅presents两个选项（从不 / 保存密码或保存帐户作为非密码凭据）引导走向决定将他们以更好的状态，在这里将不会再次提示他们为这个应用程序，或选择在从保存的信息为用户带来好处。从我们已经看到的数据，在普通情况下的下降并未持续提示用户要远远大于失去的机会后轻松节省效益已经下降previously。

Thus, the current implementation only presents the two options (Never / Save password, or Save account for non-password credentials) to steer the user toward a decision putting them in a better state, where they are not prompted again for this app, or opt in to benefit from saved information. From the data we've see, the benefit of not continually prompting a user in the common decline case greatly outweighs the lost opportunity to save easily after having declined previously.

但问题确实提出了一个很好的点，从永不保存列表中删除一个应用程序是一个很大的（它可以在Chrome浏览器设置来完成的步骤，的 passwords.google.com ，或谷歌Android设置），并可能是值得重新尤其是在事件后来无意中选择，因为有关说明。如果检测保存密码数据用户​​亲和力某些变化（例如用户开始选择加入保存其他应用程序数据），这可能是适当的提示用户审查，他们已经选择了应用程序。

But the question does raise a good point that removing an app from the "Never save" list is a lot of steps (it can be done in Chrome settings, passwords.google.com, or Android Google Settings) and might be worth revisiting, especially in the event it was accidentally selected, as noted in question. And if some change in user affinity for saving password data is detected (e.g. user starts opting in to save data for other apps), it might be appropriate to prompt the user to review the apps for which they've opted out.

（注：我们考虑的另外一个变化是有一律不保存适用于刚刚的用户名的问题，但也增加了很多的复杂性和混乱，并在研究中，多数从用户的意图，下降并不是要与谷歌的任何密码信息保存在所有的应用程序，这是罕见的，用户将有多个账户，只需要保存一个，但不是另一个）

(Note: one other variation we considered was having "Never save" apply to just the username in question, but that also added a lot of complexity and confusion, and in the studies, the majority intent from users in declining was not to save any password information with Google at all for the app, it was rare that user would have multiple accounts and only want to save one, but not another)

这篇关于为什么谷歌智能锁对话只是有两种方式];绝不＆QUOT;和＆QUOT;保存＆QUOT;没有＆QUOT;否] ;?的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！