> I don't know how to be more clear: I don't know. Just as I probably > wouldn't be able to tell you whether I liked a painting from a > description of it, I don't know how to tell you whether I like a UI > without actually clicking on it. I don't see anything obviously > objectionable. I think you should proceed, and I'll chime in when I > have something to add.
On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Evan Daniel <eva...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Well that is more or less the plan, except I don't think it needs to be > > parity, because there is a lot of functionality in fproxy that is mainly > for > > developers and not useful to most users, and I don't think we need to > wait > > for it to be implemented to switch to a UI that is better in every other > > way. > > Really? I don't see much functionality that fits that description. > Sure, the advanced mode config and stats pages get rather long. But > surely implementing those is no harder than implementing the simple > mode ones. > There is a lot. Core functionality is being able to surf web pages, download and upload files, participate in the forums, and perhaps this new blogging thing. > > I must be forgetting something. What is the problem with building GWT? > > AFAIK, the entire stack is open source. > > First, I haven't actually tried to build it (and don't intend to, > given what I've heard). If someone who has cares to speak up, go with > what they have to say. > Wait, are you referring to what is required to compile Java to Javascript using GWT, or what is required to compile the entire GWT development toolset from source? I see no reason that we need to do the latter, any more than we need to compile Eclipse or javac from source before using it. > > That doesn't make sense. If that constituency wants to implement a > "lite" > > UI for Freenet then they should, but this shouldn't become a requirement > > that holds back (and may-well kill) any substantive advance in our UI for > > the rest of us. > > It's a small minority of computer users. It's a significant minority > of Freenet users. Remember, you've intentionally selected for as > paranoid a userbase as possible. You're at the extreme non-paranoid > end of the curve, if the people wandering into IRC are anything to > judge by. > We should be concerned with legitimately paranoid people, but not irrationally paranoid people. Using a Javascript-enabled browser like Chrome in privacy mode is no less secure than using any other browser if we filter Javascript downloaded over Freenet (as we already do). You're suggesting that we dramatically increase the amount of work involved in creating any new UI to cater to the irrationally paranoid. I don't agree. > Besides, so far I haven't heard mention of anything where js is > required for functionality. I've heard plenty of suggestions for ways > it improves the user experience; I absolutely think we should use it > for that. Just make sure it degrades gracefully. > Making sure it degrades gracefully vastly increases the amount of work required, essentially requiring that we implement a parallel non-JS GUI. I don't agree that this is necessary. If some people want it, they are welcome to implement it themselves, but it shouldn't hold up the UI for everyone else. > > Perhaps its a cultural issue, but I see no problem with robust debate, > > provided that it stays on-topic, is based on facts not ego, and doesn't > > descend into ad-hominem. If you are aware of specific examples where the > > project has been hurt by the culture on these lists, then you should > bring > > it to our attention, but I just don't see it. > > If your wife is unwilling to speak on the email list about it, that > should be a sufficient example. Its not that she is unwilling, she just doesn't see the point, since most of the discussion is meta stuff, rather than useful feedback on the proposed design. Saying that you can't offer feedback on the design until you have a working UI is ridiculous. Static wireframes are a very common way to present an initial draft of a UI, and most people have no trouble using a little imagination to form an opinion on it. Most user interfaces are at a very late stage of the design process before you can actually interact with them. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: i...@sensearray.com Ph: +1 512 422 3588
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://osprey.vm.bytemark.co.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
