On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Evan Daniel <evanbd at gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Starting work and asking for input was?precisely?what I did in the email >> > that started this entire thread. >> >> My impression from later messages in the thread was that when people >> had comments, you tended to overrule them or dismiss them. > > I really wish, rather than critiquing my tone, you would respond to the > specific arguments I've made in favor of a fresh start with the UI. ?All > I've done is made a proposal, and defended it when people have made comments > I don't agree with. ?That isn't overruling or dismissing, its called > "discussing", and its exactly what we should be doing.
I didn't jump into this thread intending to critique your tone. I was trying to say something like "Hey Ian, it looks like you're stepping on a lot more toes than I think you meant to or need to. Perhaps you should look into that?" But, as with nearly all writing on the Internet, it seems to have been read in a different light than I intended it. I've said everything I have to say on the specifics: I think FProxy is in need of an overhaul, I think input from someone who actually knows how to design UIs would be wonderful, and I see nothing obviously objectionable in the mockup. If you want detailed comments from me, I need something clickable. Failing that, give me design documents, and I can comment on those instead. If it's too early in the process for that, that's fine; I don't mind waiting while work progresses to that stage. > >> >> I don't?think this would be so much of a problem, except it sounds like >> you >> expect other people to help write code while telling them you plan to >> throw out what they've been working on already. > > Firstly, all I've done is made a proposal, and defended that proposal, I'm > not dictating anything to anyone. Perhaps you haven't noticed, or perhaps it's just me, but it's my impression that everyone around here thinks that what you say goes, seeing as you're the official head of the project and the one in charge of the money. You're not the same as any other developer, and for better or worse your words won't be read in the same context. > The reality however is that FProxy is a mess. ?We've basically implemented > our own web framework, and it violates almost every rule of good web > framework design. ?We've got HTML structures implemented in Java code, and > no convenient support for AJAX, among other flaws. > If you disagree with this observation then say so, and let's debate it. I agree. I think a completely new UI would be wonderful. I think the best way to do that would be to develop the new UI as a separate branch, bring it up to parity or near-parity with current FProxy in functionality, and then switch over. But, as I'm not the one who will be writing the code, I really don't object if those who are want to do it differently (for example, toad's idea of gradually migrating FProxy to be the new idea). However, I do think it would be a bad idea to try to support two different UIs at the same time for the general community. > But if you accept that FProxy has serious and fundamental flaws, then it > makes perfect sense to replace it with a pre-existing open source web > framework that has elegantly solved all of these problems. ?GWT is the best > candidate for this I've found. GWT may be best, but IMHO the lack of a way to build it cleanly should be treated as blocking level bug on inclusion. We aren't so desperate for a way to generate HTML that it makes sense to take a step backwards on having Freenet be dependent only on Free software. But we've been down that path before, and afaict your mind is made up. Also, I think it's quite important that whatever we end up with, it behave well with js and cookies turned off. (Some things like Freetalk login requiring cookies makes sense; I don't see a way to avoid that. But we should minimize the number of such things where possible.) I don't think that's a particularly hard requirement, provided we pay attention to it. (Note that I'm not saying we can't use them; just that it should degrade well, without losing any functionality.) > I know a lot of work has gone into FProxy, but that fact alone cannot > prevent us from considering the pros and cons of replacing it. ?We've thrown > out a lot of code over the years with Freenet, its an essential part of > software development. > Regardless, nothing will get thrown out any time soon, we'll be lucky if we > get a new UI for Freenet 0.9. >> >> For example, there's >> been a significant amount of UI work and discussion of same on >> Freetalk -- why are you announcing that "the plan" (which isn't so >> much "the plan" as "your plan" at present, afaics) involves throwing >> all that out and starting over, rather than participating in that >> discussion? > > This isn't "the plan", this is "a plan" that I'm seeking feedback on. >> >> I think there's a big difference between saying "here's what I've >> done, what do you think?" and "here's what I've done, and what I >> expect everyone else to do in the future, what do you think?" even >> when the amount of prior input from other people is the same. > > Its not what I expect people to do, its what the plan requires *if* people > accept it. ?Would you prefer that I pretend that replacing the UI required > nobody to do anything? > >> >> > I've suggested that she join in, but she isn't a huge fan of the >> > rough-and-tumble of Freenet's mailing lists. ?Hopefully she will. >> > Ian. >> >> To be really blunt (and yes, I realize that's probably part of the >> problem), I suggest that you should work on fixing that problem rather >> than avoiding it. ?I won't pretend to know how to go about doing that >> (hopefully you have some ideas?), but I think it would help if you >> lead by example. ?I haven't been criticizing what you're trying to do, >> and personally I don't have much of an issue with how you've done it. >> What I've been trying to say is that it looks to me like you ruffled >> some feathers, as an outside observer who's mostly neutral, I think I >> can make a decent guess as to why. > > All I've done is proposed that we improve our UI, made an argument for why > doing this properly requires replacing fproxy's current infrastructure, and > argued that GWT is the best candidate for a replacement web framework. You've also laid some criticisms on the general behavior of the community. I tend to agree with you on those, but in the past when I've said things about it I was ignored. So I was hoping that you would be willing to put your leadership role to use in improving the situation. > > The reality is that FProxy is a mess, we've basically implemented our own > web framework, and its not a good one. ?We have HTML constructs embedded > directly in code, which is always a bad idea. > Sooner or later our web interface needs a reboot to address these > architectural deficiencies, and I don't think there is any advantage to > pretending that this isn't the case. >> >> And I'm serious about wanting to hear your wife's words directly. ?It >> would be helpful to be able to distinguish your ideas and opinions >> from hers. > > I don't think she has any interest in discussing anything other than > feedback on the proposed redesign. ?Certainly she has absolutely no interest > in getting involved in a meta-debate like this one. ?I'll try to persuade > her to chime in, but if you actually had specific questions for her it may > help. I don't really have any specific questions at present. I won't claim to know how to run a UI design project, but the ones I've observed and (peripherally) participated in tended to involve looking for feedback in a fairly organized way. If there are specific next steps where you're seeking specific input, I'd be happy to offer it. But, given only a vague and open-ended prompt, I don't have much to say; I figured I'd keep quiet while those that have ideas and opinions voice them. Don't worry, when I have something I think is productive to add, I'll do so. Evan Daniel
