Am Donnerstag, 15. März 2012, 13:15:26 schrieb Matthew Toseland: > On Sunday 11 Mar 2012 12:53:11 Arne Babenhauserheide wrote: > > Am Freitag, 9. März 2012, 21:52:22 schrieb Steve Dougherty: > > > Should we get rid of more of the steps in the first-run setup? > > > > I think yes - if people choose the default installation, they should not > > be > > forced to take additional decisions. > > The main difficulty is, one complex page is not better than four simple > pages.
That’s why it’s important to create that one page in a way that most people can just click Finish. It’s simple, because most people don’t actually need to take a decision here. And I think such an easy way is mostly needed when you use low security: The “just let me run this”-mode. > We still need to ask for low security/high security as the first page, with > custom = expert mode. Maybe we should rename "Custom security" to "Expert > mode" ? That’s what I thought: Keep the first page (3 choices: Opennet/Darknet/Custom). In case of Opennet, just show a single page with the most important default settings, so people can change that, but do not have to. > Browser warnings should go away most of the time. > > > Please check the default configuration. Change values which don’t fit: > > > > * Encrypted Datastore Size: 2 GiB [change] > > This is sensible. We can produce a sensible default, we can combine it. > > > * Assigned Bandwidth: 10 KiB/s (26 GiB per month) [change] > > Most connections are asymmetric but Freenet's usage is fairly asymmetric. > Whether ISPs charge for / cap total monthly transfer or just download > varies. Showing just the output limit probably makes sense here, there's no > sense limiting download since it's almost entirely driven by usage... > unless you have a monthly cap. Hmmm ... We are trying to avoid having to > show cover-your-backside explanation messages here as they bloat everything > out to multiple pages ... Maybe we can get away with "26GB per month plus > your downloads" or something though. Actually my freenet just uses the full assigned bandwidth all the time, and pretty symmetric. Using the lower of in and out as base should work. It would be 51 GiB, though (I think TheSeeker pointed out that I forgot to use in *and* out). > > [Finish and connect now] > > > I2P works very nicely with > > > something that would work without Javascript, but works much better > > > with: it shows for a given speed setting how much it will likely use per > > > month. That a way better way to deal with monthly bandwidth limits than > > > asking directly. > > > > I would like that. > > I agree that is important. It doesn't need Javascript though. But only after setting it. Javascript shows it directly. And I think that would be nice: Javascript as some grease, but not necessary for features. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. - Arne (http://draketo.de)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
