On Sat, Sep 18, 2010 at 9:28 PM, Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> wrote: > 2010/9/18 Cl?ment Vollet <cvollet at gmail.com>: >> Well, a (good?) reason could be for those using text-browsers (on remote >> access, it is probably faster). > > I don't really consider that a good reason. ?How many > tens-of-thousands of users are we willing to lose in order to keep the > 8 people who for some weird reason insist on using lynx? >
Some people just can't use JavaScript. For example, screen readers. You shouldn't underestimate people's accessibility needs. >> But, I thought that we agreed last time that >> we were going to keep FProxy as a UI for those who don't want to use >> javascript, and build a new one for those who don't care. The overhead >> shouldn't be too consequent, especially if we introduce a template system for >> FProxy. >> >> This way, we satisfy both needs, and we can keep FProxy for operations not >> being supported by the new UI (it may take some time before we achieve >> feature >> parity with FProxy). >> >> Does this seem reasonable? > > Yes, I'm in favor of keeping fproxy for developers and other people > with "niche" requirements, those people can continue to work on fproxy > per their needs. > > But the majority of the project's UI efforts must be on making Freenet > easy and pleasant to use for the majority of users, rather than > pandering to lynx users and those that are morally opposed to > Javascript for some reason. > > 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 >
