>>>>> "TP" == Tim Peters <tim_one@email.msn.com> writes:
TP> The first time I submitted a bug, I backed up to the entry
TP> page and hit Refresh to get the category counts updated (never
TP> saw Jitterbug before, so must play!). IE5 whined about
TP> something-or-other being out of date, and would I like to
TP> "repost the data"? I said sure.
This makes perfect sense, and explains exactly what's going on. Let's
call it "poor design"[1] instead of "user error". A quick scan last
night of the Jitterbug site shows no signs of fixes or workarounds.
What would Jitterbug have to do to avoid these kinds of problems?
Maybe keep a checksum of the current submission and check it against
the next one to make sure it's not a re-submit. Maybe a big warning
sign reading "Do not repost this form!" Hmm. I think I'll complain
on the Jitterbug mailing list.
-Barry
[1] In the midst of re-reading D. Norman's "The Design of Everyday
Things", otherwise I would have said you guys were just incompetent
Webweenies :)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4