Re: [Tails-dev] Tails-greeter UI redesign
Hi, Some time ago, I wrote: > From: a...@boum.org > Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2012 13:44:15 +0200 > > As you have probably experienced, tails-greeter UI is far from > ergonomic. Thus, some of use discussed plans to improve the situations[1]. > > These plans include asking for your input on UI design proposals. > We will then propose 1 or 2 implementations, get them tested and see > what happens. > > So it's time for those who care to send what you find relevant, be it > suggestions about something not to forget about, proposals or user > experience workflow, UI mockups or anything else. Well no answer so far... but I took some time to play on this, and have some mockups to propose. Please test! Everything is on the ticket, under the title "Prototypes": https://tails.boum.org/todo/tails-greeter:_revamp_UI/ Download everything in https://tails.boum.org/todo/tails-greeter:_revamp_UI/mockups/ or better clone the git, go to the directory and: $ ./mockup.py [-v ] [-p] Dependencies: gtk3, python gobject introspection (basically debian wheezy) My goals for the interface was: - read in "natural" order: top to bottom - no hidden windows/options - easy to adapt to right-to-left languages RTL - inspired/similar to GNOME3 "system perferences" I'd like to hear about: - your overall impression? - should keyboard selectable independently from locale in one click? - your navigation experience? - where should the locales box be? Cheers -- pgp1muvNUvL1g.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge feature/persistent_NM_connections [was: tails-persistence-setup releases vs. Tails 0.14]
>> Don't wait for me, I am convinced as well. > Same here :) Merged. Adapted the network connections preset's name in the bundled doc. ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge feature/persistent_NM_connections [was: tails-persistence-setup releases vs. Tails 0.14]
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 05:33:18PM +, Ague Mill wrote: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:21:05PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > > intrigeri wrote (03 Oct 2012 17:30:10 GMT) : > > > anonym wrote (03 Oct 2012 14:34:59 GMT) : > > >> So, with the current state of things it still looks like a bug to > > >> me, although with nice side-effects. Making it into a proper feature > > >> (i.e. patching nm-applet) is definitely desirable, but not something > > >> I'm willing to take on for the 0.14 release. > > > > > I'm now convinced. Let's document this as a known issue, and create > > > a ticket to remember we need to make up our mind some day on this > > > topic (possibly after Wheezy is released). > > > > I've tested the branch and I'll be happy to merge it once we have made > > a decision on the autoconnect thing (deadline for anonym's proposal: > > Friday at noon CEST). > > Don't wait for me, I am convinced as well. Same here :) bert. ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge feature/whisperback_1.6.1
a...@boum.org wrote (04 Oct 2012 15:09:45 GMT) : > Hi, >> From: intrigeri >> Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:49:07 +0200 >> >> > * Use smtplib's timeout parameter >> >> I'll review and consider merging once you tell me you have tested that >> change (last time I've asked on IRC, you were not sure you had ;) >> > That's now verified. Merged :) ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge feature/persistent_NM_connections [was: tails-persistence-setup releases vs. Tails 0.14]
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 11:21:05PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > intrigeri wrote (03 Oct 2012 17:30:10 GMT) : > > anonym wrote (03 Oct 2012 14:34:59 GMT) : > >> So, with the current state of things it still looks like a bug to > >> me, although with nice side-effects. Making it into a proper feature > >> (i.e. patching nm-applet) is definitely desirable, but not something > >> I'm willing to take on for the 0.14 release. > > > I'm now convinced. Let's document this as a known issue, and create > > a ticket to remember we need to make up our mind some day on this > > topic (possibly after Wheezy is released). > > I've tested the branch and I'll be happy to merge it once we have made > a decision on the autoconnect thing (deadline for anonym's proposal: > Friday at noon CEST). Don't wait for me, I am convinced as well. -- Ague pgp5LnkSh9Ila.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review feature/early_skip_unwanted_packages
On Sat, Sep 29, 2012 at 08:52:26PM +0200, intrigeri wrote: > this branch prevents some unwanted packages to be installed at all, > rather than uninstalling them later. This should speed up the build > a bit. > > Candidate for 0.14, has been living in experimental for a while. > No ticket, sorry. I'll create it if needed after the first > review round. Reviewed, tested, merged. :) (I have not done any measurements regarding build speed, though.) -- Ague pgpiknDGJbYU1.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review and merge feature/whisperback_1.6.1
Hi, > From: intrigeri > Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2012 22:49:07 +0200 > > > * Use smtplib's timeout parameter > > I'll review and consider merging once you tell me you have tested that > change (last time I've asked on IRC, you were not sure you had ;) > That's now verified. When I edit the source too set timeout=1 or timeout=2 it fails, while with timeout=120 it works (worked once with timeout=5!) Cheers -- pgp8Q7Ro6xBRk.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
Re: [Tails-dev] Please review feature/assymetric_gpgApplet [sic!]
On 27/09/12 15:38, anonym wrote: > 27/09/12 15:19, intrigeri wrote: >> hi, >> >> anonym wrote (27 Sep 2012 13:09:17 GMT) : >>> doc/encryption_and_privacy/openpgp_passphrase_encryption (symmetric) >>> >> >>> The context menu for gpgApplet is now different, so both screenshots >>> (encryption and decryption) have to be updated. >> >> While we're at it, we could drop screenshots (as adviced by GNOME >> documentation guidelines, that some of us found very inspiring) and >> get rid of this problem. > > At first I intuitively felt strongly opposed to this, but after reading > the relevant part of GNOME-STYLE [1] and thinking some about this, I now > agree. I still think we should keep the screenshot for locating the > applet, though. > > [1] > http://developer.gnome.org/gdp-style-guide/stable/infodesign-8.html.en#infodesign-10 Exactly. We should try to limit the number of screenshot but not remove not all of them. For example, we should keep the ones who explain where is the applet, and what it looks like. >>> doc/encryption_and_privacy/openpgp_with_gedit (asymmetric) >>> -- >> >>> This page should be renamed since gpgApplet is to be used, not gedit. >>> Perhaps "openpgp_public_key" is a better name. >> >> The symmetric one is called "openpgp_passphrase_encryption", so >> perhaps we want to have this one contain "_encryption" too? > > Sure. Let's say "openpgp_public_key_encryption" then. That's what I was going to propose. >>> Actually there may be a point in uniting these pages into a single >>> one now since the same tool is used in both cases. Thoughts? >> >> I'm not sure "the same tool is used" is a good criterion for deciding >> how we organize end-user documentation. >> >> These are pretty different usecases, probably targetting quite >> different people, so I'd rather keep separate (shorter) pages. >> >> E.g. some people use symmetric encryption, and don't even know any >> other kind of encryption exists, so pointing them to a page where both >> are documented may be an additional factor of confusion. Keeping these >> pages separate also makes it easier to link to the one or the other. > > You may be right. OTOH, some parts will be (largely) duplicated, like > how to find the applet in the notification area, the explanation that > gpgApplet operates on the clipboard, and how to decrypt/verify stuff. I agree with intrigeri. Those should be separate pages. In case parts are really duplicated, I sometimes use inline directives to factorize the common parts in a small dummy page. See: /doc/first_steps/manual_usb_installation.intro/ /doc/first_steps/manual_usb_installation/ /doc/first_steps/manual_usb_installation/linux/ Feel free to comment… Regarding my commitment to doing that. I really want to do it. I'm pretty busy there days but I'll try to work on that on Friday, and Saturday. This project is more motivating than ever, but the pace of releases is really hard for me to cope with :( signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ tails-dev mailing list tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev
