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. >> 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. >> d) FUD alert on the "Download" page: >> >> "Anti-virus software: Severe problems have been reported with Kaspersky, >> and other firewalls and antivirus software may also break Freenet's >> installation. Having said that, we do NOT recommend that you turn off >> your antivirus software on a Windows system; if installation doesn't >> work, please contact us and we will try to find out what is wrong." >> >> (TBH we haven't had "severe problems", and we don't know for sure if >> Kaspersky was the fault (although it looks like it was). And we are only >> talking about a single incident here - not "and other firewalls and >> antivirus software may also".) > > The problems were severe. However, it is true that other firewalls and > anti-virus software may not cause such problems. I have removed the warning. His Freenet installation broke, But his system wasn't harmed in anyway. Hopefully this will be resolved by switching to using a non-custom user account for the service. It would still be cool with a contact who can reproduce this though. >> 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? >> 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. IMHO we are exaggerating with this warning page. Dunno about IE? Is version 7/8 "secure enough"? >> No idea what a >> "browser profile" is. > > Should we not mention browser profiles at all? And let advanced users who > know about them figure it out themselves and feel smug? I don't think we should. Very few users will even know what they are. Some browsers don't even have them. >> (I have to agree. Quite a bit of usability fail. >> Put it as an fproxy info message instead. Hopefully we will have >> incognito support in FF soon enough.) > > Even if we do, if it behaves like profiles do, it will not be reliable, but > hopefully it won't... The Browse Freenet script will need to be sure that the > locally installed copy of Firefox is capable of incognito mode before using > it in preference to Chrome with incognito mode or turning off the browser > warning. On the other hand, if the user has Chrome installed the problem is > largely solved on Windows - with the main caveat being that we have to turn > off the page-loading javascript, because it doesn't work in Chrome (there is > a bug for this). Perhaps we should check whether Chrome is installed and ask > the user whether they want it in installation? I do think that telling the > user they need a separate browser for Freenet in the installer, and letting > them select one for the Browse Freenet script to always launch, is a good > idea (bug #3104). Sounds like a good solution to me to make the installer search for incognito-capable browsers, and offer to install one if none found. Chrome actually has an online installer - but only supports XP SP2+ and Vista. We could also simply link to the project page of FF when they implement a (hopefully working) incognito mode... > The Browse Freenet script should pass in a flag if it is sure that it is > starting a browser in privacy mode. Having said that, shouldn't the user be > aware of this issue? A false sense of security can do > a great deal of damage... > > https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3247 You need to remember to submit them under "wininstaller" and not "installer" if you want me to realize that you submitted something for me to work on ;). >> g) Confusion about the "automatic IP detection". Why does Freenet needs >> my address when I'm supposed to be anonymous? > > So Freenet uses a magical invisible protocol that doesn't involve sending any > packets over the internet, doesn't require new hardware, and is completely > undetectable? > >> What is JSTUN? What should >> I do on this page? (Agreed.) > > The UPnP explanation is okay, right? > > You want a *full* explanation for JSTUN? > > JSTUN: > Currently: > "Enable automatic IP address detection via JSTUN. Uses central servers (also > used by e.g. internet telephone programs) to find out your IP address. Turn > off if you are concerned about this." > > Longer: > "Enable automatic IP address detection via JSTUN. Freenet is a distributed > network, therefore other Freenet nodes need to know your IP address in order > to connect. Because most computers are not directly connected to the Internet > but go through routers, modems and so on, and most computers' IP address > changes regularly, the easiest way to determine your current IP address is to > ask some central servers which are also used by Internet telephony programs. > If you are worried that this might be used to identify your use of Freenet, > you should turn this off, but you will need a static IP address, a direct > internet connection or some other way of finding your address such as a > dyndns.com address. Note that dyndns is blocked in China!" > > Shorter: > "Enable JSTUN. Turn this off if you have a static IP address or a dyndns > address." I don't know what the best way is. I'd personally like not having to ask the user about this technical stuff. UPnP for IP detection should always be safe to enable? Your peers can tell you your IP address on opennet? When UPnP fails on darknet, you could ask the user if he wants to enable the JSTUN plugin (with a proper explanation, like your long version above.) >> h) FUD on the main fproxy page after finally getting through the wizard: > > Is there an implication here that it is too long? Any suggestions as to what > to take out? Taking a big chunk of the user's disk space and bandwidth > without asking used to lose us quite a few users. Making assumptions about > security is likely to cause problems for those few users that do need it... I > have considered getting rid of the welcome page at the beginning that allows > you to not use the wizard... A bit too long, yeah. On top of my head: Welcome page: Move general info to next page, put a skip button in the header/footer/corner somewhere on all other pages instead. Ram usage: Don't ask. Either use static default (as now) or dynamic according to available memory. Advanced users can adjust it in settings afterwards. IP detection page: See above. Security levels: Perhaps figure out some smart way to merge either some of the levels or some of the pages? >> Big read warning about connecting to the network. (Agreed. Since this is >> to be expected, we shouldn't display a big, fat, red warning box. This >> makes users go FUD and think they did something wrong or something is >> broken. Make it a big, fat infobox instad. > > What big red warning? "The node is trying to connect to the network, it will > be slow for a while." ??? How is this FUD? Users don't read, and have > unrealistic expectations, so it is IMHO essential to tell them, while we have > less than 10 peers, that Freenet may be slow for a while. Several times when > I have done test installs this hasn't even shown up since it has reached 10 > peers before showing the browse page! There will probably always be people around who refuse to read. I personally don't think we should sacifice usability for smart users to satisfy the stupid ones :). It's not so much the size that bugged the reviewer, but rather the fact that it was presented as a *red warning* and not as an white infobox or similar. - Zero3
