License page checkbox

It'd be nice to have the option to have a checkbox on the license page to have to the user check to signify that they have read the license agreement, and then subsequently enable the Agree button once the checkbox has been checked.

Comments?

-Scott

Theoretically there is no reason why this can't be done but I have to ask why would you want it? If it's just a way of being more sure that the user has read your license then you're fooling yourself, a user will only read the license if they are the type of person that would have read it under the current Agree button system anyway. All you achieve, IMO, by adding a checkbox is thoroughly annoying the user!

If you want to be more sure that the user read the license agreement, you should disable the I Agree-button until the user has scrolled till the end of the license. Or even better (side-effects: will annoy the user extremely): Only enable the I Agree-butten when the user has scrolled down and a certain time has past. For example: To read this post, it takes approx. 25 seconds. After 25 seconds AND when scrolled down, enable the I-Agree button.

But personally, I wouldn't do it. The I Agree button works fine now.

Indeed, as extra insurance. Another way to say, "Well, you had to have read it, you clicked the box that says you did, AND pushed the button that said you did."

It should be optional, of course:

LicenseData /CONFIRM "path\to\license.txt"

for example.

Just in the spirit of keeping with the ability to do everything that other installers can do.

-Scott

You can create a custom page for it, but I don't think that it should be added as a NSIS option.

What is the difference between clicking the 'I Agree' button and checking a 'I Agree' checkbox and clicking 'Next'?

You can't be sure that the user has read the full agreement.

It's better to keep the agreement short and make it easy to read. The license NSIS uses is a good example, short and easy to understand. Most agreements contain lots of bullshit.

You're right. Why do you ever want such a confirmation. The only thing that this license is useful for, is when someone sews you (how do you spell it: to be called to a court and a judge), you can say:
"That woman is wrong. The license she saw before installing NSIS said that we're not responsible for any damage caused by this program, even damage to data.😛"

Originally posted by sdbarker
Just in the spirit of keeping with the ability to do everything that other installers can do.

Hmm, didn't think of it like that.

License agreements don't hold up in court anyway. There's already been cases where that didn't work. 🙂

It's just another one of those "other installers can do it, why can't nsis?"

-Scott

Only useful features should be implemented, not the useles crap of other installers.

I agree.

And I also think that validation of a license agreement is useful. That's why I brought up the topic.

Just opinions.

-Scott

I agree, validation should be an option...its not as important as 7z or anything, but it would be a nice option

License page checkbox

Please answer the poll.

Way to edit my post, kichik. ;-)

Good idea though. yay for polls.

-Scott

I think rather to have a check box, why don't you add 2 radio button, which is "I agree" and "I don't agree" something like. and then to have a next button enabled if the user selected the "I agree" radio button. This options is present for many professional installer anyway. Therefore, it would be nice if you can implement this feature in the installer

That's a good suggestion, and I was impressed to see it in the poll. That's the option that I voted for, was to have both the checkbox, and the radio button, as options.

8 total votes for enhanced validation, and 3 against. Maybe my idea wasn't so bad after all.

-Scott

Both is a bit overkill. Only option boxes would be enough.

I still think that it's too much work. All 22 NSIS language need to be updated. That will take weeks and delay the release of beta 0.

Originally posted by Joost Verburg
That will take weeks and delay the release of beta 0.

How about making it a post-beta0 feature, then? The votes are overwhelmingly "for", though I personally hate license agreements in principle, myself. 😉

However, I can see why some companies who might look at nsis might look the other way when they see it's missing something so "basic" in their eyes.

I think the functionality should be included for those who have a percieved need for it. Also, it could conceivably be used for less nefarious purposes than a license agreement... (Not that I can think of any off the top of my head...)

Nah, overwhelmingly 😁 Only 12 people voted.

It could be a post-beta 0 beta, but why would you want people to click twice? It's just annoying.

If you really want it, you can use Install Options to create your own page.

I agree. Why has NSIS to be like the other installers? NSIS might be a little different, but is yet so flexible that option buttons/checkbox could be implemented without rewriting NSIS or the language files. Just leave it as it is now: It's easy this way. That's one of the mayor plus-points of NSIS: easy to make/use.

By the way: 13 people voted. I did!

Originally posted by Joost Verburg
I still think that it's too much work. All 22 NSIS language need to be updated. That will take weeks and delay the release of beta 0.

You don't seem to have a problem with making people update modern ui strings every other day.

-Scott

That's true.

The problem is that there are even more NLF language files. Most Modern UI translations are regular forum visitors, but it's still very difficult to reach all translators.

It's even more difficult to contact all NLF translators. It will maybe take a month and a lot of work and e-mails to get all the files updated.

I'm sorry, but it's really impossible to do this before beta 0.

What's wrong with an Install Options page?

The fact that you need to do all that extra work, put an extra 12k or so of data, and handle all of the validation yourself, for something so miniscule, that's a defacto standard everywhere else, and that's come to be an expected option.

This feels kinda like its turning flame-ish, and I really don't want that, so I hope I'm not coming off that way. 🙂

-Scott

Could this be possible with InstallOptions? You'd have the allow the "text" box to be multiline or maybe do it in a label?

Not to mention, it'd have to be rtf, to be able to work properly with all the other license page stuff, and you'd have to have callbacks for the radio buttons/checkbox to get its state, and then you'd have to be able to change the state of the button, and this altogether adds WAY more code than should be required.

Again, just ideas. Thinking out loud, if you will, but quietly, since I didn't say anything, I just typed it. But there was the clicking noise, so .... mep. nm.

-Scott

I have been thinking about this. If there was a way for people who did not need this function, to 'exclude' it. Then I say go for it.

The reason why it is a good idea:
Real businesses look at options like this. Yeah there is the argument that people can bypass it easily enough. But that isn't the point. Management doesn't think like 'techies'. It'd be a shame, for a business not to use NSIS; because of it missing that feature.


But if it was mandatory, then this wouldn't be such a good idea.
There are many many projects that use NSIS. And they are open-source, or freeware, or whatever, who don't charge for their software. Most of the time, it is not really that important to read the license. But they use the License page anyway, to display it, and to let the user know that there IS a license to the software that they just installed. And to force them to use the 2-radiobutton option, on their license page, is just not tolerable.

Bottom line: Have the ability to include/exclude the 2-radiobuttons.

OK. I can live with that: Radiobuttons or a Checkbox, whatever...
But I think that you shouldn't implement it in this release. Just write it in a TODO-list under the header: "Modifies the Languages Files", then, when the next release (not 2b0) comes, implement it all at once and let the people update their lang-files.

SQwert:

I agree. I absolutely do NOT want this to be mandatory. I've used the license page before just to throw out some quick info, and I don't want somebody to have to "agree" to my little bits of information before they can continue. Like I said before, there's hould be a token for it.

As for the language file situation, maybe there should be a call put out NOW for people to update their language files. It's not like it's a major update. Two lines, it seems like, "Yes, I agree to the terms stated above." and "No, I do not agree to the terms above.", the first being used for the checkbox, and the 'agree' radiobutton, the second obviously for the disagree radio button.

-Scott

I think that it could be possible to integrate this stuff into the beta 1 realease, but it's really not possible before beta 0.

Beta 0 is almost ready now. It will be released when the Modern UI Translations are ready.

This feature would require:

* New UI dialogs for the alternative license page (other text box size, checkboxes)

* An update of all language files

It's not a big update to the language files, but believe me, it's very difficult to reach all the translators.

Releasing beta 0 just has priority now. Alpha 7 is very old, and it's time for a new release.

I'm not saying that you will always have to use Install Options, it's just an option if you really want to have it right now.

i like the idea, but it should be optional

Beta 1 works for me. 🙂 I thought I mentioned that before, but looking back, I didn't. My bad.

I have absolutely not doubt that reaching all the translators is difficult.

-Scott