Ridiculous wording - Disable Suspending accounts...

[kalsta]

Got a call this weekend from one of my biggest clients to say their website was down and reporting a bandwidth exceeded error. I couldn't understand this, since I know I only recently checked this in WHM Tweak Settings to ensure that users who exceed their bandwidth would NOT have their accounts disabled.

So I checked it again and realised my error… The setting is worded like this:
'Disable Suspending accounts that exceed their bandwidth limit'

I had mistakenly read this as 'Disable suspended accounts...', so I thought that by unchecking this I would stop accounts from being disabled when bandwidth is exceeded, when in fact it means the exact opposite.

OK, this is my mistake, but it would have been avoided if sensible wording had been chosen. I think it's reasonable to expect a setting which starts 'DISABLE' to have the more destructive effect. It's a double negative: 'Disable Suspending'. In other words, turn this option on to turn something off. Totally unintuitive. It could just read 'Suspend accounts that exceed their bandwidth limit', and its function would be obvious.

[digitalinsights]

It seemed pretty clear to me what the option meant.

[jsnape]

hmm I always thought it meant disable the possibility that an account would be suspended due to exceeding bandwidth. I always set it so a reseller can set and later adjust their own bandwidth, then if an account goes over and turns off, its their responsibility for letting it happen, and they can fix it by upping the bandwidth.

The has it's own danger, but hasn't been a problem even once in 6 years. Some day we may need to not not allow it to happen.

[kalsta]

Thanks for the different perspectives.

I still think the wording 'Disable Suspending accounts...' is poor. You would never use this wording if you were speaking to someone, so why use it here? You would just say 'Suspend the account...', or 'Don't suspend the account' (which could equate to unchecking a tick box next to the words 'Suspend accounts...')

Cheers
kalsta

[electric]

Submit this as a bug, and perhaps in a few years the wording will be clarified...

I agree that, if it works as you described, then it is very unclear.

But I always thought this option meant that if it's checked, the accounts will NOT be suspended if they exceed their bw quota.

[kalsta]

> But I always thought this option meant that if it's checked, the accounts will NOT be suspended if they exceed their bw quota.

Sorry, now I guess I'm the one confusing people… Yes, you are right. It does exactly what it says and you interpret it correctly. The point I was trying to make is that it would be simpler if it just said, 'Suspend accounts that exceed their bandwidth limit'. Obviously this would work in the opposite way -- you would tick the box to opt to suspend accounts, rather than tick to not suspend accounts.

Perhaps I'm the only one who misread this? Oh well, just call me stupid and we'll leave it there…

[brianoz]

Perhaps I'm the only one who misread this? Oh well, just call me stupid and we'll leave it there…

Myself I understood it; but I think the wording is confusing and should be fixed just as you say ...

[bpat1434]

Disable Suspending accounts that exceed their bandwidth limit (will clear all suspensions if disabled, and disable all bandwidth notifications.)

That's how it shows up for me. Personally, I find it crystal clear. You're disabling an action (suspension of accounts) as a result of an action. I don't see anything wrong with it.

But it probably would be better served as a drop-down to be:

Accounts exceeding their bandwidth limit: [Suspend | Ignore]

Where "Ignore" will ignore the bandwidth limit, and Suspend will suspend those accounts in excess. Of course a little [ ? ] icon next to it would help take some of the ambiguity out of the function.

[kalsta]

I don't think you'd ever see a company like Apple use such wording in a user interface (having read the 'Apple Human Interface Guidelines'). Little things like this add up and make the difference between a great user-friendly interface and an average one.

BTW, I disagree with the drop-down idea, since there are only two options -- suspend or don't suspend. Radio buttons maybe.

[HostMerit]

If this is your biggest problem right now, you're doing just fine

[bpat1434]

BTW, I disagree with the drop-down idea, since there are only two options -- suspend or don't suspend. Radio buttons maybe.

Well, I was thinking long-term there. In the future you could expand to three options: [Suspend | Warn | Ignore].
Suspend would suspend the account and throw up that ugly "Suspended account" page.
Warn would put a visual warning up on the site (or in cPanel) warning of the over-usage, or even just send out an email.
Ignore would ignore the over-usage.

Even a fourth option could be instituted to where once it's over the limit, you move it to daily limits. So they can still see their site for a time, but it's not as long as usual.

But I agree, if it's just for the two, a radio-button would be better suited (as it would make things clearer).