Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[Ian]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:54 PM,  wrote:

> Youtube does dark background for saving energy once a year.
>

I'm pretty sure that isn't true.  Not only does it not make any sense
whatsoever, but I can't find anything to back that up.  Can you support
that claim?

So, not only at least one big website uses dark background, it's also good
> for the environment.
>

That's not true
.


> Additionally, functionality really isn't a problem with current dark
> background. Reasons:
> - mostly there is less text / no huge text deserts
> - the text builds a high contrast to the background, especially thanks to
> bold typo and because the text is big enough
> - it's not that colors on the website are so onesided and intense, that
> uncomfortable compensation effects are happening (looking on red
> background, switching to white background, seeing green although no green
> is there)
> If despite of all that it just has to be made more functional, I'd rather
> make the space between the letters a tiny bit bigger, and if that's not
> enough than would redo and instead of that choose a slightly bigger text
> size.
> Finally, asthetic design does matter. You eat with your eyes first, and
> the current dark background as it is is the perfect reflection in design of
> a key component of the freenet: The darknet.


Yeah, that's about as convincing as your previous arguments, one of which
is almost certainly factually incorrect, and the other is definitely
factually incorrect.

Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[hyazinthe]

Youtube does dark background for saving energy once a year.
So, not only at least one big website uses dark background, it's also good for 
the environment.
Additionally, functionality really isn't a problem with current dark 
background. Reasons:
- mostly there is less text / no huge text deserts
- the text builds a high contrast to the background, especially thanks to bold 
typo and because the text is big enough
- it's not that colors on the website are so onesided and intense, that 
uncomfortable compensation effects are happening (looking on red background, 
switching to white background, seeing green although no green is there)
If despite of all that it just has to be made more functional, I'd rather make 
the space between the letters a tiny bit bigger, and if that's not enough than 
would redo and instead of that choose a slightly bigger text size.
Finally, asthetic design does matter. You eat with your eyes first, and the 
current dark background as it is is the perfect reflection in design of a key 
component of the freenet: The darknet.


Greetings,
Torben Lechner

--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: Ian 
Datum: 07.11.2015 00:37:56
An: hyazin...@emailn.de,Discussion of development issues 

Betreff: Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:23 PM,   wrote:
The dark background is fine. Functionally the current setting ain't that bad, 
and aside of that the dark background
is a nice change. Consider that one aspect of beauty is rarity and relations:
If everything looks alike (white background) across the internet, then that 
look is not interesting or beautiful, but boring average.


Originality might be important for art, but a website is a user-interface 
first, art (a distant) second.  With a user interface, it is very rare 
that doing something nobody else does is a good thing, normally there is a good 
reason why nobody else is doing it.


In this case, almost nobody does dark backgrounds because it makes the site 
hard to read.  The tool fails to do it's job.


Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[Ian]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:23 PM,  wrote:

> The dark background is fine. Functionally the current setting ain't that
> bad, and aside of that the dark background
> is a nice change. Consider that one aspect of beauty is rarity and
> relations:
> If everything looks alike (white background) across the internet, then
> that look is not interesting or beautiful, but boring average.
>

Originality might be important for art, but a website is a user-interface
first, art (a distant) second.  With a user interface, it is very rare that
doing something nobody else does is a good thing, normally there is a good
reason why nobody else is doing it.

In this case, almost nobody does dark backgrounds because it makes the site
hard to read.  The tool fails to do it's job.

Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[hyazinthe]

The dark background is fine. Functionally the current setting ain't that bad, 
and aside of that the dark background
is a nice change. Consider that one aspect of beauty is rarity and relations:
If everything looks alike (white background) across the internet, then that 
look is not interesting or beautiful, but boring average.

Greetings,
Torben Lechner

--- Ursprüngliche Nachricht ---
Von: Ian 
Datum: 06.11.2015 22:55:46
An: x...@freenetproject.org
Betreff: Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:33 PM, xor  wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, November 05, 2015 03:35:30 PM Ian wrote:
> > > Really?  It looks nothing like a typical Bootstrap site.  I think
> it
> > might
> > > have been better to stick much more closely to the standard Bootstrap
> CSS
> > > (eg. light background).
> >
> > With regards to "light background": We won't ever win this
> situation.
> > We had a light background, so people complained we should get a dark
> one.
> >
>
> I don't know who these "people" are that advocated for a dark background,
> but almost no other popular website on the Internet has a dark background
> and light text, likely because it makes the site difficult to read (which
> is the feedback we've been getting).
>
> Now we have a dark one, and people complain we should get a light one.
> > This IMHO is just a matter of taste, both are equally valid.
> >
>
> If both were equally valid, then how come almost no popular website on the
> Internet has a dark background?
>
> Ian.
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl@freenetproject.org
> https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[xor]

On Friday, November 06, 2015 03:55:46 PM Ian wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:33 PM, xor  wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 05, 2015 03:35:30 PM Ian wrote:
> > > Really?  It looks nothing like a typical Bootstrap site.  I think it
> > 
> > might
> > 
> > > have been better to stick much more closely to the standard Bootstrap
> > > CSS
> > > (eg. light background).
> > 
> > With regards to "light background": We won't ever win this situation.
> > We had a light background, so people complained we should get a dark one.
> 
> I don't know who these "people" are that advocated for a dark background,

I'm not certain whether they were humans, but I hope I am one :D
- I actually spent multiple *hours* in configuring my KDE, Eclipse, etc. to be 
all dark background everywhere as it's feels more pleasant for my eyes 
personally. I feel like very bright light everywhere is annoying.
Also, I feel like light on dark creates a lot more contrast than the opposite, 
and thus is more readable.

Also, a green on black terminal is 1337 :)
(And isn't green the color where we have the most receptors for in the eyes, 
which would explain why it feels very readable for me?)

So those "people" do exist, there is at least one - but of course this doesn't 
answer whether I'm the majority or minority here.
So how about we settle such "which taste is the majority?" things with a poll?
Or with A/B testing even, as long as someone bothers to implement an identical 
bright version of the site :|

> If both were equally valid, then how come almost no popular website on the
> Internet has a dark background?

Hmm. Good point. The ones I can think of:
- Netflix
- that popular porn site :)
- Not a website, but very widely used nevertheless: Android's default theme is 
dark background.
- Imgur
- Bing even uses light grey on dark grey

They are a minority indeed, but they do exist :|
What I wonder: Do the popular company sites do light on dark due to more of a 
psychological decision than a readability one? They might believe "dark = 
shady, and we shouldn't look shady to our customers". I actually brought up 
this reasoning as well when we discussed our site revamp, I was at first 
opposed to the dark background as well for this reason solely: Freenet's 100% 
free speech inherently makes people consider it shady; and with the dark 
background we might support that.
(I actually disagree with this reasoning now: I think it's sometimes good to 
give people they stereotype they expected - then they know they googled 
themselves to the right place, and thus don't leave immediately.)

--
hopstolive  (keyword for Ians spam filter)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Am Freitag, 6. November 2015, 00:40:41 schrieb Steve Dougherty:
> I'd like to move it below the download button anyway.

Same for me.

Also “we have the right to” is no viable argument for doing something
which does not work.

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Celebrate with ye beauty and gather yer friends for a Pirate Party!
→ http://1w6.org/english/flyerbook-rules#pirate-party ←



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[Ian]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:33 PM, xor  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 05, 2015 03:35:30 PM Ian wrote:
> > Really?  It looks nothing like a typical Bootstrap site.  I think it
> might
> > have been better to stick much more closely to the standard Bootstrap CSS
> > (eg. light background).
>
> With regards to "light background": We won't ever win this situation.
> We had a light background, so people complained we should get a dark one.
>

I don't know who these "people" are that advocated for a dark background,
but almost no other popular website on the Internet has a dark background
and light text, likely because it makes the site difficult to read (which
is the feedback we've been getting).

Now we have a dark one, and people complain we should get a light one.
> This IMHO is just a matter of taste, both are equally valid.
>

If both were equally valid, then how come almost no popular website on the
Internet has a dark background?

Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[xor]

On Friday, November 06, 2015 12:40:41 AM Steve Dougherty wrote:
> Out of respect for you instead of just moving it I have published it as
> a pull request: https://github.com/freenet/website/pull/22

That's kind of you!
You have my ACK to merge that.
Both you and Ian provided enough reasons that its a good idea, so I've changed 
my mind :)

--
hopstolive  (keyword for Ians spam filter)

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Thoughts on website

[Ian]

On Thu, Nov 5, 2015 at 5:15 PM, xor  wrote:

> On Thursday, November 05, 2015 03:40:31 PM Ian wrote:
> > Also, I think the current site is worse than the version during testing
> due
> > to the placement of the donation bar, which it is clear is causing
> > significant confusion.
>
> The main goal with the new large bar is having people see it since it is an
> emergency fundraiser since we're unable to pay me... So due to the
> emergency
> it ought to be an eye-catcher and thus IMHO is fine to be the first thing
> on
> the page as it is now.
>

We're not Wikipedia, almost every visitor to Wikipedia already knows what
Wikipedia is and why it might be deserving of their donations, most
visitors to our website do not.  Shouting "GIVE US MONEY!" before we've
even explained what we are is not going to work, and will be
counter-productive because it is obviously confusing people and turning
them away from the site.

With regards to the "it is impolite to first ask for money and only
> afterwards
> have the download button" criticism which was mentioned somewhere:
> We should grow a spine and realize that it is not impolite.
>

It's not a question of politeness, it's simply a fact that shouting "GIVE
US MONEY!" at people before we've explained anything about what we do won't
work, and will drive them away from the site.  This isn't speculation,
people are already telling us this clearly (both on reddit and on IRC)

We've really got to think about how we lay out the website from the
perspective of visitors to the website, not from the perspective of what we
want.

Ian.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Things Before 1471 Release

[Steve Dougherty]

Hi everyone,

Here's my current understanding of the things Fred needs before 1471
will have -pre3 / is probably stable and feature-complete. If you're
looking for something to do, doing one of these would be great!

1. When updating to a suggested version, plugins (especially ones
   necessary to connect like UPnP) need to completely fetch the
   suggested version before unloading the current one to avoid being
   unable to complete the fetch. [0] We can either remove the suggested
   versions from connection-essential plugins (the easier option) or
   implement suggested version upgrading as above.

2. Add a fundraising solicitation useralert. See how the JVM version
   alert was added; [1] this one should have a "hide" button too. [2]
   This could be something like "The Freenet Project can no longer
   afford to pay a developer. Please donate! Our BitCoin address is
   1966U1pjj15tLxPXZ19U48c99EJDkdXeqb; see the project website for
   details." (Maybe a link to the website mirror, and/or the clearnet
   one.) The BitCoin address be added with a substitution token in the
   translatable string.

3. Generate and use a new autoupdate key to be switched to if running
   Java 7 or higher. (A release manager needs to at least generate the
   key; I'm working on a script for this.) Fixing bug #6390 is part of
   this. [3]

- Steve

[0] https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=4490
[1]
https://github.com/freenet/fred/commit/2e0a8583de26b186a49c3f5e62713dd643e6c347
[2]
https://github.com/freenet/fred/commit/c4560061fc71251c02bc9178a6a992879ef90c5d
[3] https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=6390



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl