2010/10/11 Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM, <cvollet at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Each feature should be treated as a different application, like google, >> gmail, google maps, etc... >> > > I think there is much to be inspired by in Google's various apps, including > their clean UIs, however the fact that they are separate largely isolated > applications isn't one of them. I think Facebook is a better (although also > imperfect) source of inspiration here. Also Facebook also has the paradigm > of being connected to people, and has created metaphors around this that > most people now understand intuitively. Its always better to piggy-back on > metaphors people already understand, rather than trying to introduce new > ones. > > Well, here are the reasons why I think google's metaphor fits better: - Freenet is the network. Other things are just apps, I think we can agree on that, - There is no link between those apps (Search/Filesharing/Friends management/Discussion/Mail), - It allows us to have a specific design for every application, thus making it clear and simple, whereas with Facebook-like UI, we always have the surrounding context which doesn't represent anything, - It allows to decouple the network and the applications which run on it, making it easier to reuse those applications in freesites, like using Freetalk embedded in a freesite as a forum. - Users already understand this (well, like Facebook), - Users won't see Freenet as a restricted version, like now, where Freenet = FProxy essentially. It allows them to grasp more easily the concept of an alternative network, and so not to be surprised when they see standalone application like Frost/Thaw/Freemule, ... - We don't lose the integration between applications, look at gmail, where google integrated youtube, documents, etc. when you receive a mail. We can do the same thing, for instance, like now, recommend a file to a friend in the filesharing application, showing up in the facebook-like application of the friend.
And I don't see anything that a facebook-like UI has to offer. We should clearly have one for the Freenet "social application", using friends and/or WoT, but I think it would limit Freenet to one application. Moreover, we limit 3rd party apps who want to integrate to the UI. > I don't want to have to learn or remember that "FreeTalk" is the forums > tab, it should just be called "Forums". I don't want to have to remember > that "Fproxy" is where I browse websites, it should be called something like > "Browse Websites". > > In other words, we shouldn't give names to different facets of Freenet that > people will have to learn, they should be named descriptively, and should be > seamlessly integrated, rather than treated as a series of separate > applications. > > I agree, and if you look at google applications name, they're pretty unequivocal. > I would really like to see some mockups too - now that GWT > Designer<http://code.google.com/webtoolkit/tools/gwtdesigner/index.html>has > been made freely available by Google, it should be very easy for people > to throw together some mockups for us to discuss and get our teeth into. > > I began to do a mockup, but: - I have another project (nearing the end) with a higher priority, - GWT Designer doesn't work well here, and it can be a PITA sometimes, - While I was doing the mockup, I realized I was pretty much copying FProxy (just reorganizing it), and I wondered if it wouldn't be best to lay down some ground rules and concept, without thinking of FProxy at all. > Ian. > > -- > Ian Clarke > CEO, SenseArray > Email: ian at sensearray.com > Ph: +1 512 422 3588 > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20101011/a0e553bb/attachment.html>
