On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 2:30 PM, Michael T?nzer <NEOatNHNG at users.sourceforge.net> wrote: > I don't think funding depends on how our website looks, at least not > directly
Not directly, but definitely indirectly. Funding is proportional to the number of users, and the number of users is proportional to the number of people persuaded to use Freenet by the website. >. I still am not convinced that a Mozilla-like design would fit > our project, although I have to admit there are a few things we could > improve (e.g. a simple summary on top of each page, so the user doesn't > have to read through the whole techspeek). I'm not suggesting we need a direct copy of the Mozilla design, but we do need to aim for that level of simplicity and friendliness. > We never could do a landing page like getfirefox which gives almost no > information on the setup process, because Freenet is not as easily set > up, it's not plug'n'play, you have to adjust a few settings. There are situations where some configuration is desirable, but not absolutely necessary. Sensible defaults are the key. > Apart from the installing process Freenet is not yet another colourful > designer application, it's software that is meant to provide you > anonymity and security against censorship. It's not like candy it's > medicine, it should look different because if it doesn't people could > get careless, but it doesn't have to taste bitter. Google is used for all sorts of serious things, and yet its design is friendly. I don't see anything wrong with a design that implies Freenet will be easy to use, I think this is what a friendly design says to people, it implies ease of use. Anyway, I agreed with most of the rest of what you said. Ian. -- Email: ian at uprizer.com Cell: +1 512 422 3588 Skype: sanity
