5 ms·

I will admit that the gatekeeper change is annoying. It’s already hidden under a menu with control click so I hope that change doesn’t hit retail. But correct

I will admit that the gatekeeper change is annoying. It’s already hidden under a menu with control click so I hope that change doesn’t hit retail. But correct me if I am wrong, the weekly alerts is only for screen recording right? Realistically how many apps do you have with that permission? Given that it a highly sensitive permission since it can basically expose nearly anything else that isn’t in a password box… it seems fine? Maybe make it 2 weeks or “smart” and taking into account how often the app is really using that permission. But similar on my iPhone if I were to grant an app permission to read my contacts(I don’t, but still), I would want to know if it’s constantly doing that in the background. Even if Mac has a notice at the top saying your screen is being monitored, I still think having this periodically confirm access again is a good thing. As mentioned Apple does have to walk that line between power users and most users. Even as a power user why is a one week alert really going to interfere with my ability to use it as I wish? To me the reality is there isn’t a solution here that appeases everyone. An app that wants unrestricted access will try to trick the user to follow a few steps to disable a safeguard. We see this all over iOS with so many apps trying to justify their tracking.

upon_drumhead 2y ago
The control click is the impious that is causing these articles. In Sequoia they removed that shortcut so it's only available via deep menus now. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/08/macos-15-sequoia-makes-you-jump-through-more-hoops-to-disable-gatekeeper-app-checks/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/08/macos-15-sequoia-mak...
- nerdjon 2y ago
  That I agree with, it is a stupid change. However, it is worth mentioning that in 3 of the "span of links" seem to be referencing the screen recording change I mentioned. (1 for sure, the third one ... kinda vague?). But also: > But I also want to be able to grant trusted applications non-sandboxed access to my entire file system, access to cameras and microphones, and the ability to capture my screen. So that may have causing it, but clearly both of these issues the author is upset about and implying it causes issues for power users.
lapcat 2y ago
> Maybe make it 2 weeks or “smart” and taking into account how often the app is really using that permission. If it were smart, it would have a "Never Again" option. Nick Heer argues that these dialogs are not even effective for unsophisticated users, especially when they occur repeatedly: https://pxlnv.com/blog/permissions-pollution/ https://pxlnv.com/blog/permissions-pollution/ > I do not think this new prompt succeeds in helping users make an informed decision. There is no information in the dialog’s text informing you who the developer is, and if it has changed. It does not appear the text of the dialog can be customized for the developer to provide a reason. If this is thrown by an always-running app like Bartender, a user will either become panicked or begin passively accepting this annoyance. > The latter is now the default response state to a wide variety of alerts and cautions. Car alarms are ineffective. Hospitals and other medical facilities are filled with so many beeps staff become “desensitized”. People agree to cookie banners without a second of thought. Alert fatigue is a well-known phenomenon

upon_drumhead 2y ago

The control click is the impious that is causing these articles. In Sequoia they removed that shortcut so it's only available via deep menus now. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/08/macos-15-sequoia-makes-you-jump-through-more-hoops-to-disable-gatekeeper-app-checks/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2024/08/macos-15-sequoia-mak...

nerdjon 2y ago
That I agree with, it is a stupid change. However, it is worth mentioning that in 3 of the "span of links" seem to be referencing the screen recording change I mentioned. (1 for sure, the third one ... kinda vague?). But also: > But I also want to be able to grant trusted applications non-sandboxed access to my entire file system, access to cameras and microphones, and the ability to capture my screen. So that may have causing it, but clearly both of these issues the author is upset about and implying it causes issues for power users.

lapcat 2y ago

> Maybe make it 2 weeks or “smart” and taking into account how often the app is really using that permission. If it were smart, it would have a "Never Again" option. Nick Heer argues that these dialogs are not even effective for unsophisticated users, especially when they occur repeatedly: https://pxlnv.com/blog/permissions-pollution/ https://pxlnv.com/blog/permissions-pollution/ > I do not think this new prompt succeeds in helping users make an informed decision. There is no information in the dialog’s text informing you who the developer is, and if it has changed. It does not appear the text of the dialog can be customized for the developer to provide a reason. If this is thrown by an always-running app like Bartender, a user will either become panicked or begin passively accepting this annoyance. > The latter is now the default response state to a wide variety of alerts and cautions. Car alarms are ineffective. Hospitals and other medical facilities are filled with so many beeps staff become “desensitized”. People agree to cookie banners without a second of thought. Alert fatigue is a well-known phenomenon