Comment by hughw
10 years ago
> The intent was never to frustrate people or override their choices
When you designed an agent that specifically overrides the user's choice to turn off Accessibility rights for Dropbox, frustrating that attempt, I suspect that was intentional.
Note: not excusing Dropbox, but understanding how they reached here.
Bob (who less technically savvy) installs Dropbox for use with Office. Chuck (someone more technical than Bob) removes Dropbox from the accessibility list. Chuck has now broken Bob’s Dropbox, and Bob (being less technically savvy) blames Dropbox resulting in another ongoing thread about broken Dropbox.
I completely understand how Dropbox reached this point, and purely from a technical support point of view, how it is justified. There are probably better ways for them to have done this (still have the “hack”, but only insert it if Office applications are detected to be installed; have an option that can turn it off even if Office is installed, but warn about it and make it “easy” to turn back on).