The more I think about it, I like having the arrows because they info on the user of the setting before they turn it on.
I say we should keep the arrows. What do you all think? On Aug 6, 2012 2:38 PM, "Steve Dougherty" <steve at asksteved.com> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/04/2012 01:21 PM, irfan mir wrote: > > Hello, I am Irfan? a friend of Steve Dougherty and he had asked me > > to further > > > > design his idea for Freenet's security setup. One can view his idea > > here: > > > > https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/2012-July/036466.html > > > > > > > > > > In this email I will reiterate Steve's idea and add screenshots of > > my design of > > > > this security setup idea. > > > > > > > > > > As seen here, this is what the setup will look like in the > > beginning: > > > > http://cl.ly/image/1U0I1s1z3P18 > > > > As you can see, there is a main container with the title "Security > > Setup" which contains a list with security options. Each option > > has, to the left of the text, a toggle-switch to turn it on, and a > > rightward pointing arrow. On click of the right-ward pointing > > arrow, a description of that option will appear, but more on that > > later. > > > > > > > > This is what the setup will look like when an arrow is clicked: > > > > http://cl.ly/image/2d1x3r3V0a27 > > > > As you can see, when an arrow next to an option is clicked, it > > turns downward as a pane, that contains a description, slides down > > from underneath the option's label. Clicking the arrow again > > causes the description to slide up and the arrow to turn rightward > > again (as seen in the first screenshot). > > > > It seems like there's no need to have the arrows in addition to the > toggle switches. > > > > > Here is what the setup will look like when a toggle switch is > > clicked. > > > > http://cl.ly/image/111i2b0X3b3M > > The screenshots look very nice! Are these raster mockups or is there > code behind this? > > > Now, the html behind the toggle-switches will be radio-buttons. > > This way only one toggle-switch can be turned on / one security > > option can be turned on at a time. When a toggle-switch is clicked > > / radio-button is selected, if not already expanded the description > > of that security option slides down and the arrow turns downward. > > This is good because is allows the interface to demonstrate the > > functionality of the arrows when clicked in addition to a mouseover > > providing hints. Secondly, the other security options fade-out of > > the way. They can and will return when the toggle-switch is clicked > > again or turned off. Thirdly, another pane slides out from > > underneath the options. This contains the necessary settings for > > that option and a submit-button at the bottom. Each setting has an > > input to the right of the setting's label / name. To the left of > > the label / name is an arrow which provides an explanation / a > > description for that setting like the arrows of each security > > option did when clicked. The done button would complete the setup. > > > > Javascript and jQuery are already going to be implemented to style > > the radio-buttons (toggle-switches) on clicked, as there isn't a > > well supported way to do this in css, and preform the sliding and > > fading effects. We can also use JS and HTML5 to do useful things > > like keeping the form valid but turning valid values green and > > in-valid one's red. Its actually a better UX (User-Experience) to > > keep valid values the way they are and turning in-valid ones red. > > > > Good point. > > > > > > > > > Although challenging, this seems like something I would be willing > > to develop as well. However, before I begin doing so, I would like > > to know the answer to 2 questions. > > > > Would the freenet-devs prefer there to be support for when scripts > > / javascript is disabled or turned off? An idea to handling this is > > directing the user to the current setup if so. > > I'm fine with requiring Javascript for this setup and redirecting to > the legacy one otherwise. > > > And secondly, to what IE would the freenet-devs want this to be > > supported? Meaning should something as low as IE6 support it or is > > 9 and above fine. In my opinion, it would be easiest and best if we > > build the setup to be supported in IE9 and above and other > > modern-browsers (Chrome, Safari, Firefox, and Opera). And then > > later-on make additions for support in IE8 and below when > > possible. > > > > Fine by me. > > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > I appreciate and welcome any and all feedback. > > > > Thanks in Advance & Best Regards, Irfan. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) > > iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJQIA8AAAoJECLJP19KqmFuIlQP/3BYx5VuacbruLE7Pmq/BpMW > RNpiVc69xbtUcR1vZ1cisclJXlXwgHdTYkT4HoSMbUXnUQBDTBXA9ZhwqyKxLoYk > xOUScv6z40fQSJJrIRGGxZM3nuXvCZy1aA5y9aoT9Y7VmNGdDZfFvCXoU6dveraf > W3yDnNqyNP2YaOlOz6F35eKI7UKIoH/45sRAv35+z7fgjpFoR0nztI4u0/c9fIUg > 9xNTVtIiZ8v9NFuSE075/vxH3AjzkdPQojaxKByusMBg5+dc3pTviS1zmY77u9Ol > rW13xMPWM+P0/O9tL57VLpEbNGMTS6fMtfgcWm6iLxNGpco5OM8hxm25if2HNZ3D > gcwg82weHW/ESr5w+PpZ4Q3jrwnS1wJN++Kcvvjb9WEzQzsd9J6JxJ7eaY7XyInD > nypjC8P+PiNRQaW+wEyB3rTnKs3ZDB0ru4nC4+rryFgV1ebMSfg9zPuQfWghSBne > dKRVRmogTXo69rRImN4pE7R1tQzUNzZAsVKI52qvZmRQSs2XCbNF2btV1Qy/HyV6 > HMZLW8kmdOU5216Ss1T+mR28OxBqebBVNwkTutKh7OgIO9ciEYwLHusVyIQOO6iy > 1a0veT7n1X26MEXOrfSPJYcx1Kwaqi9+ITYdKWSTwNduvxvqeOm71HisKoanxBH6 > EQ4jz2qWe1O30f18I1Y8 > =jUrH > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20120806/6780c6cb/attachment.html>
