On Friday 12 February 2010 03:17:16 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Thu, Feb 11, 2010 at 8:45 PM, Evan Daniel <evanbd at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That doesn't make sense. If that constituency wants to implement a > > "lite" > > > UI for Freenet then they should, but this shouldn't become a requirement > > > that holds back (and may-well kill) any substantive advance in our UI for > > > the rest of us. > > > > It's a small minority of computer users. It's a significant minority > > of Freenet users. Remember, you've intentionally selected for as > > paranoid a userbase as possible. You're at the extreme non-paranoid > > end of the curve, if the people wandering into IRC are anything to > > judge by. > > We should be concerned with legitimately paranoid people, but not > irrationally paranoid people. Using a Javascript-enabled browser like > Chrome in privacy mode is no less secure than using any other browser if we > filter Javascript downloaded over Freenet (as we already do). > > You're suggesting that we dramatically increase the amount of work involved > in creating any new UI to cater to the irrationally paranoid. I don't > agree.
I don't see why it increases the amount of work involved by more than a trivial amount. Perhaps you could explain what part of the essential, visible functionality of e.g. http://www.google.com/ requires Javascript to function? Those parts of the web interface that are static are, well, static! You don't use javascript to draw the freenet logo pixel by pixel, you include it as an <img>. You specify colors and create menus and dropdowns with CSS. *Nothing* in the mockup requires Javascript: It can easily be implemented in HTML+CSS, which is surprisingly powerful. What does require Javascript, and hence GWT, are two things: 1. Live updating. Components that change dynamically in response to things going on on the node, for example the progress bars on the page loading page. 2. In-place actions. You click on something, it whirrs around a bit, and then it changes something in-place. For example if you remove a bookmark you expect it to go away without a page reload on a modern system. -------------- 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/20100213/780e642a/attachment.pgp>
