On Wednesday 17 June 2009 13:46:28 Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Wednesday 17 June 2009 09:54:18 Zero3 wrote:
> > Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > > On Tuesday 16 June 2009 21:53:09 Zero3 wrote:
> > >> Matthew Toseland skrev:
> > >>> On Sunday 14 June 2009 14:24:39 Zero3 wrote:
> > >>>> a) On the front page of the website: A "What is Freenet?" teaser
> > >>>> linking
> > >>>> to the "What is Freenet?" page would be cool. Confusedly started to
> > >>>> read
> > >>>> the news item instead. (She should have spotted the "News" headline,
> > >>>> but
> > >>>> I agree on the teaser)
> > >>> I think originally the reason for putting news on the main page was
> > >>> that a lot of people check back on the website repeatedly, looking for
> > >>> new stuff (i.e. news) ?:
> > >>>
> > >>> I agree we should have some basic explanation and link on the home page
> > >>> though ... I am not quite sure whether just copying the first para from
> > >>> "What is Freenet" as Dieppe has done is sufficient?
> > >>>
> > >>> "Freenet is free software which lets you publish and obtain information
> > >>> on the Internet without fear of censorship. To achieve this freedom,
> > >>> the network is entirely decentralized and publishers and consumers of
> > >>> information are anonymous. Without anonymity there can never be true
> > >>> freedom of speech, and without decentralization the network will be
> > >>> vulnerable to attack."
> > >>>
> > >>> Followed by a link to learn more, a download link and news.
> > >>>
> > >>> Is this sufficiently comprehensible to newbies? I guess so, but it
> > >>> doesn't really answer the question!
> > >> I think it's quite good actually! I think "Without anonymity there can
> > >> never be true freedom of speech") is a bit subjective though.
> > >
> > > Alternatives? Clearly anonymity is a direct consequence of the overriding
> > > goal of thwarting censorship.
> >
> > Ala "The anonymity of Freenet makes true freedom of speech possible"
>
> Freenet is free software which lets you anonymously share files, browse and
> publish "freesites" (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on
> forums, without fear of censorship. Freenet is decentralised to make it less
> vulnerable to attack.
>
> Or even:
>
> Freenet is free software which lets you anonymously share files, browse and
> publish "freesites" (web sites accessible only through Freenet) and chat on
> forums, without fear of censorship. Freenet is decentralised to make it less
> vulnerable to attack, and if used in "darknet" mode, where users only connect
> to their friends, is very difficult to detect.
>
> ???
> >
> > >>>> b) FUD alert on the "What is Freenet?" page:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> "Freenet does not let the user control what is stored in the data
> > >>>> store.
> > >>>> [...] Files in the data store are encrypted to reduce the likelihood
> > >>>> of
> > >>>> prosecution by persons wishing to censor Freenet content."
> > >>>>
> > >>>> (Agreed. We are scaring some people away before they even reach the
> > >>>> download page. I don't think we should hide the facts, but rather give
> > >>>> a
> > >>>> reasoned explanation for the ways Freenet do things.)
> > >>> I guess there is a language issue here yeah...
> > >>>
> > >>> How about this? (deployed):
> > >>>
> > >>> 'Users contribute to the network by giving bandwidth and a portion of
> > >>> their hard drive (called the "data store") for storing files. Files are
> > >>> automatically kept or deleted depending on how popular they are, with
> > >>> the least popular being discarded to make way for newer or more popular
> > >>> content. Files are encrypted, so generally the user cannot easily
> > >>> discover what is in his datastore, and hopefully can't be held
> > >>> accountable for it.'
> > >> Much better, yeah.
> > >>
> > >>>> c) On the "Philosophy" page: More focus on what Freenet actually *can
> > >>>> do* for citizens living under censorship and the like.
> > >>> Isn't that what "What is Freenet?" is about?
> > >> Well, yeah, except it doesn't really say anything about it on that page
> > >> either.
> > >
> > > It does now IMHO. Have you read the current version?
> >
> > Yeah, it does mention what you can do with Freenet in general. Dunno.
> >
> > >>>> e) On the "Download page": No idea what a "node reference" is. (Could
> > >>>> be
> > >>>> rephrased or explained better)
> > >>> That's why it's in quotes, and the "Add a friend" page does explain it.
> > >>> Do you have any suggestion as to how to improve the wording?
> > >> Perhaps add a paranthesis explaining the term?
> > >
> > > Is it a problem? If he clicks the link to Add a Friend it will explain it
> > > to him?
> >
> > Given that he has a node running (it links to localhost fproxy). It is
> > not a problem, just a minor usability quirk IMHO.
>
> Not sure what can be done here. I mean if you actually open the page it's
> obvious what a noderef is.
> >
> > >>>> Very annoying to be asked to install a second
> > >>>> browser. In this case, a third (using FF with IE as backup. And user
> > >>>> is
> > >>>> asked not to use IE). More FUD about history leaks.
> > >>> FUD stands for Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. Unfortunately, the warnings
> > >>> about browser history stealing are factually true. Perhaps there is an
> > >>> argument for not naming such attacks if this intimidates people? Is the
> > >>> problem with IE important? There are possibilities for working around
> > >>> it, there has never been much enthusiasm for implementing them (even
> > >>> from ian who tends to be usability oriented).
> > >> Exactly. The user is fears the consequences of history leaks and is
> > >> uncertain what he ought to do, and thereby doubts his security and
> > >> privacy using Freenet.
> > >
> > > He knows what he needs to do - use a separate browser. Don't we make that
> > > clear? It may be annoying but it is clear, no?
> >
> > It is indeed very clear, but as you say, also damn annoying. If
> > possible, I think we should avoid annoying the user.
>
> Well, any suggestions you may have... afaics the best option on windows is to
> run Chrome in incognito mode, and tell the wizard not to show the warning.
> But in that case we need to warn the user if they ever use another browser -
> and we can't tell the difference between Chrome in incognito mode and Chrome
> not in incognito mode, so I think we should display the warning anyway, we
> just need to rewrite it a bit for the case where we are using Chrome in
> incognito mode:
>
> "You must always use a browser with incognito mode for Freenet!
>
> You are currently using Freenet through Chrome in incognito mode. This should
> be safe. You should always access Freenet using Chrome in incognito mode, or
> through a browser you do not using for normal web browsing. The Browse
> Freenet link on the start menu should use Chrome in incognito mode, and so
> should be safe. Most browsers will work well with Freenet, except for
> Internet Explorer.
>
> Click here to continue."
>
> ???
>
> IMHO this is much less annoying, while still getting the message across.
> Obviously it needs to be tweaked a bit when we have a systray icon.
Okay, so what would this say if we are *not* in incognito mode (that we know
of) ?
"You must always use a browser with incognito mode for Freenet!
You should always access Freenet using Chrome in incognito mode, or through a
browser you do not using for normal web browsing. The Browse Freenet link on
the start menu should use Chrome in incognito mode, and so should be safe. Most
browsers will work well with Freenet, except for Internet Explorer.
Click here to continue."
Or maybe we should avoid shameless advertising for one product ...
Currently, it says:
"You must use a separate browser (or a browser with privacy/incognito mode) for
Freenet!
We strongly recommend that you do not use the same web browser to both browse
the ordinary web and access Freenet, unless it is in incognito/privacy mode.
Browser history stealing attacks in particular may enable malicious websites to
determine which Freenet-based websites ("freesites") you have recently visited,
breaking your anonymity. Please use a separate browser to access the Freenet
web interface. For example, on Windows, the Browse Freenet link will
automatically open Google Chrome in incognito mode if it is installed.
Most web browsers, apart from Microsoft Internet Explorer, will work adequately
with Freenet, for example Firefox, Opera, Safari, Chrome, and Lynx are known to
work. You should install one of these, then copy the current URL from the
location bar, and open it in your new browser.
Click here to continue."
IMHO this is adequate. Please let me know when you have adapted the windows
browse script to pass in a parameter by launching
http://127.0.0.1:8888/?incognito=true instead of http://127.0.0.1:8888/ and I
will make it show a different message. And/or comment on the relevant bug and
assign it to me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090703/32516a3f/attachment.pgp>
