3 ms·
> That's the only expectation there's ever been. Given that the judge in this case had different expectations, that's clearly false. That may have been the int
by wtetzner 6y ago
> That's the only expectation there's ever been.
Given that the judge in this case had different expectations, that's clearly false. That may have been the intention of the feature, but I can easily see why it may not be the expectation of users.
- crazygringo 6y agoI gave you the scenario. It's reasonable. The judge in this case is simply seriously misinterpreting the feature. There are always going to be some percentage of users who misunderstand a feature no matter how explicit and clearly it's been described. Even if they're a judge. Google isn't misleading anyone here. Every time you open an Incognito page it says EXACTLY what it does and doesn't. If some users and even some judges can't read, that's their problem.