-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 04/05/2013 12:23 AM, irfan mir wrote: > So, I suggest a change in the workflow. > > 1st panel with first 2 questions-->2nd panel with second 2 > questions-->then completion. > > This seems much easier to use as it doesn't overload them with too > many questions in each panel and since the questions result in > completion, the user knows it is the questions that caused it.
Good idea. Having the four questions followed immediately by completion is definitely better, and it's also what I've been trying to convey this entire time. In retrospect I should have been clearer about not understanding your description of the workflow. Should I have tried drawing what the entire page could look like? Do I understand your reasoning for splitting the questions over two panels correctly that four is too many? I'm not sure I follow - care to elaborate? I will say that a split of the first two and the last two makes sense because the first two are network configuration, and the second two local storage configuration. On 04/04/2013 06:31 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > I'd be in favour of only asking about passwords if "do you know > somebody using freenet" is true, or not asking at all and maybe > having an alert later on. It seems to me that only showing the option to set a password when someone is using higher network security assumes that a desire for higher physical security is only to be (easily) accommodated when they aren't subject to opennet. While this makes sense from a developer's perspective - opennet is insecure, and if they use opennet how could they want physical security? - I think it makes more sense to offer the option consistently. I wouldn't expect someone to make the connection that "Do you know someone who runs Freenet?" -> higher security -> maybe you can set a password now. My impression is that having someone complete the setup only to be greeted with alerts about further configuration seems overwhelming. Would it make sense to have nodes insert bundles of metrics on how they used the setup? That could be really helpful, as long as it could be done without revealing identifiable information. I mean things like how long did they take overall, what options did they switch between before deciding, what settings did they choose? It should of course be opt-in, but I'd prefer for statistical reasons that someone who didn't opt in inserts a non-response marker so that we can have an idea of response rate. We could guess based on download vs. opt-in rate, but that's potentially much less precise. Irfan: Do you have suggestions on collecting interface usage metrics? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRXsnjAAoJECLJP19KqmFuDTUQAKPE+hrkZ1ghvGDiqSCgTSRe wsiSUOVlTTtrB8bcPrSh6ihi20J+QAOUFU4HNyHKV+s+hQfxzF/7erE1MvUvftBW ZZwP6i4itp5G/aiW1tX9Sk/+8acqLy/lN5YssH+CAJhGigyn+psNUdVsAF2ik0AD H6JJL4tegFmSDUIB4RhOnrFtsLUX3WQyt4b3/jtaxzbK9D8o/jH4GKtmeybn1gek IyL73Vkkq5MG0uUQxJcBwzUu72aJusrqmpVpggYU3MoibXlXFhphjVa85VF/atqc 4QXgEiw4VNNTKgtEmjs1Qp95PMwIpdB220EySdpDLbWQvBNjQDomqbBHnZIjfwoZ A2IYAR8V7bEOJtgjp7+fpntVO4WqoRzd0E5227BAJc/cj8XAfJbEMhC8UC33+69R /2qZ3NHClksW4/sI6UdicJ9N7P51p1Uq2NIYfIDiuZ/5lSTCxO84GguiAzsLGeJx 6y4dtA6KXUP+TJRLqJ/pj/nVhIRoda0QoOhFlu/+/OrlsqN4hE/Zw2IOL49XR/la LvaChcZ6Yxkvil82lVfMb2P70Ao9XY6xdyhUnYGhObn5ucJ2JAUkcPiPtXbd3BSr 48ujqIBzG4WAG/My5JWfgTF0UWftjyRs0AHczRvGMDWxdCM+d2yFpr23Dk3LXJkE G4dsICWYTQ6lpzd92OLw =t6ym -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
