Re: [Tails-dev] Avid Fan
Tim Almond: > Ahh that does make sense. What about similar software that would meet > compatibility, security & efficiency standards? If that would even be > beneficial to us as Tails users. I personally don't know of any. > I know this question might sound off subject, but what is your opinion of > TrueCrypt? I know it was discontinued but after the audit for 7.1 it showed > no critical issues. Curious to see what an expert might think =) We already provide LUKS [1] to create and use encrypted volume. We've discussed the advantages of TrueCrypt in Tails over LUKS in [2]. Our conclusion was that it would be useful to have better support to *open* TrueCrypt volumes in Tails, without encouraging creating new ones. [1]: https://tails.boum.org/doc/encryption_and_privacy/encrypted_volumes [2]: https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-dev/2015-April/008566.html ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] [Tails-ux] [PATCH] Change syslinux menu entries from "Live" to "Boot"
anonym: > On 09/09/2015 01:37 AM, Chris Lamb wrote: Hi Chris, thanks a lot for the patch! That's the first screen that people are confronted with but we never took the time to think much about it so I think it's a very good initiative. >> Attached is the following: >> >> commit 6c331780610f290d495f9c77f16bf7263c4e0f2a >> Author: Chris Lamb >> Date: Wed Sep 9 00:26:54 2015 +0100 >> >> Change syslinux menu entries from "Live" to "Boot" >> >> Having to explain what "Live" means so early on in the Tails >> experience >> (or ever) doesn't seem like the best experience. >> >> In addition, choices should typically be verbs - you can "boot" or >> "delete" >> things, but to say "live" here is either misleading or just a bit >> of a >> non-sequitur. >> >> Signed-off-by: Chris Lamb >> >>config/binary_local-hooks/10-syslinux_customize | 1 + >>1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > This seems like something we'd like our UX team to ACK before taking > action. For the record, I'm in favour of this change, and the patch > looks good. We had a quick chat about it on tails-ux and we're now proposing to have the following labels on the screen: Boot Menu Tails Tails (failsafe) If you're fine with that, could you adjust your patch accordingly? I created https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/10178 to track this. ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] [Tails-ux] [PATCH] Change syslinux menu entries from "Live" to "Boot"
Hi, > Tails > Tails (failsafe) We really need a verb here as I explain in my original patch. Whilst it does remove the jargon this isn't much better than "Live" IMHO. Did you have any specific objections to that? I'm not particularly bothered about which verb (eg. "Boot" vs "Start"), we just need one. Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] [Tails-ux] [PATCH] Change syslinux menu entries from "Live" to "Boot"
On 09/11/2015 05:26 PM, Chris Lamb wrote:> Hi, > >> Tails >> Tails (failsafe) > > We really need a verb here as I explain in my original patch. Whilst it > does remove the jargon this isn't much better than "Live" IMHO. I agree with both points. > Did you have any specific objections to that? I'm not particularly > bothered about which verb (eg. "Boot" vs "Start"), we just need one. Or what about verb + noun, i.e. "Start Tails" (and "Start Tails (failsafe)")? Still succinct, to the point, no jargon => hard to cause any confusion or ambiguity. The best of two worlds? Cheers! ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] [Tails-ux] [PATCH] Change syslinux menu entries from "Live" to "Boot"
> Or what about verb + noun, i.e. "Start Tails" (and "Start Tails > (failsafe)")? I should have been clearer; this is what I was suggesting. :) Regards, -- ,''`. : :' : Chris Lamb `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk `- ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] Testing Tor Monitor
Alan: > intrigeri wrote: >> sajolida wrote (27 Aug 2015 16:48:14 GMT) : >>> C. Duplicate information >> >>> In the list of circuits I sometimes see duplicated lines. >> >> Technical nitpicking: these are streams, not circuits :) >> >>> For example when connecting to heavy websites like YouTube. >>> See duplicates.png in attachment. Why not deduplicate these lines? >> >> I'm not sure what's the value of the "there are multiple streams to >> this IP:PORT going on that circuit" information. At first glance, >> I would say let's deduplicate, but perhaps I'm missing a use case >> or three? >> > If I display duplicates, either I have a bug or there are multiple > streams to this IP:port in that circuit... I can deduplicate them if > requested but I fail to see the interest to complexify the > code to simplify the reality. The interest is to have a more compact view displayed to the user and reduce noise. Did you see my screenshot? To me it looks pretty awful. I fail to see the interest in complexifying so much the interface to simplify a bit the code :) ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
[Tails-dev] [PATCH] Change syslinux menu entries from "Live" to "Boot"
Hi, Chris Lamb wrote: Tails Tails (failsafe) We really need a verb here as I explain in my original patch. Whilst it does remove the jargon this isn't much better than "Live" IMHO. anonym: I agree with both points. I don't. User interaction *is* the verb you are looking for :) For example, in an application list on any OS there isn't a 'Start Application X' instruction on every icon, but yet we are all confident that when we select any of these icons that the respective application will start (boot, to be more or less technical). Maybe we need an icon. Also, when in the Boot Menu, 'Live' is ambiguous and doesn't communicate the intended task, while 'Tails' clearly does communicate the intended task which (with the included Boot Menu label text as a second vector confirming that this is a menu and you should select an option). From my armchair, the action to take is hard-coded in the experience of knowing you are starting a computer, so all that is needed to move forward is an understanding of the options, not what action to take. Did you have any specific objections to that? I'm not particularly bothered about which verb (eg. "Boot" vs "Start"), we just need one. Or what about verb + noun, i.e. "Start Tails" (and "Start Tails (failsafe)")? Still succinct, to the point, no jargon => hard to cause any confusion or ambiguity. The best of two worlds? This is good, but conflicts with actually starting Tails, as 'Start Tails' is already in use on the Greeter. However, Bootstrapping is the function here, so: Boot Menu Boot Tails Boot Tails (failsafe) 'Boot' in the verb + noun structure becomes redundant. However, as an alternative, removing 'Boot' from the menu label makes 'Menu' an unnecessary label. Maybe we need a short descriptive sentence clarifying what action needs taken. In this case we would still have: Boot Menu Tails Tails (failsafe) But explain that when presented with options it is suggested that an option is selected and that by doing so they will be booting Tails. This sentence will need some TLC for sure if we include it. Wordlife, Spencer ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
Re: [Tails-dev] [PATCH] Change syslinux menu entries from "Live" to "Boot"
On 09/11/2015 06:28 PM, spencer...@openmailbox.org wrote: > Hi, > >>> >>> Chris Lamb wrote: >>> Tails Tails (failsafe) >>> >>> We really need a verb here as I explain in my original patch. Whilst it >>> does remove the jargon this isn't much better than "Live" IMHO. >> >> anonym: >> I agree with both points. >> > > I don't. User interaction *is* the verb you are looking for :) > > For example, in an application list on any OS there isn't a 'Start > Application X' instruction on every icon, but yet we are all confident > that when we select any of these icons that the respective application > will start (boot, to be more or less technical). Sure, context matters. But verbs do appear frequently in the context you talk about, e.g. in the right-click context menus for files there's frequently "Open" or even "Open with gedit Text Editor" as in Tails currently for a .txt file. I guess you could argue that such menus has a much larger context, so a verb is necessary there. > Maybe we need an icon. I doubt that would make anything clearer, especially when Tails doesn't have any icon strongly associated with it. > Also, when in the Boot Menu, 'Live' is ambiguous and doesn't communicate > the intended task, while 'Tails' clearly does communicate the intended > task which (with the included Boot Menu label text as a second vector > confirming that this is a menu and you should select an option). From > my armchair, the action to take is hard-coded in the experience of > knowing you are starting a computer, so all that is needed to move > forward is an understanding of the options, not what action to take. If this is an argument against "Start Tails" I do not get it. :/ "Live" is, of course, a terrible option name. :) >>> Did you have any specific objections to that? I'm not particularly >>> bothered about which verb (eg. "Boot" vs "Start"), we just need one. >>> >> >> Or what about verb + noun, i.e. "Start Tails" (and "Start Tails >> (failsafe)")? Still succinct, to the point, no jargon => hard to cause >> any confusion or ambiguity. The best of two worlds? >> > > This is good, but conflicts with actually starting Tails, as 'Start > Tails' is already in use on the Greeter. In the current Greeter we actually use "Login", which OTOH may be suboptimal in itself. It may be an artifact from its GDM heritage. > However, Bootstrapping is the function here, so: > > Boot Menu > > Boot Tails > Boot Tails (failsafe) Sure, it makes sense for us, but "boot" is computer jargon. For people unfamiliar with that word/concept, "start" makes more sense. And if you don't know English at all, chances are still that you know the "start" word. Perhaps you just used this example to derive your preferred choice, if so, ignore this part- > 'Boot' in the verb + noun structure becomes redundant. However, as an > alternative, removing 'Boot' from the menu label makes 'Menu' an > unnecessary label. > > Maybe we need a short descriptive sentence clarifying what action needs > taken. In this case we would still have: > > Boot Menu > > Tails > Tails (failsafe) > > But explain that when presented with options it is suggested that an > option is selected and that by doing so they will be booting Tails. This > sentence will need some TLC for sure if we include it. While I see your point, I still believe that "Start Tails" is what users will understand best without having to understand any context. Also, we're discussing a menu that most users won't interact with (since it auto-picks the default option after 5 seconds) and it really feels like we're starting to split hairs here (OTOH, I'm not very used to UX considerations, so perhaps it's just what it looks to me). As long as we move from "Live" and do not pick anything with "boot" in it I'm in favour, even though I prefer to include the "start" verb. Cheers! ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
[Tails-dev] Tor Monitor: don't show duplicate streams with the same destination in the same circuit
Hi, sajolida wrote: > Alan: > > intrigeri wrote: > >> sajolida wrote (27 Aug 2015 16:48:14 GMT) : > >>> C. Duplicate information > >> > >>> In the list of circuits I sometimes see duplicated lines. > >> > >> Technical nitpicking: these are streams, not circuits :) > >> > >>> For example when connecting to heavy websites like YouTube. > >>> See duplicates.png in attachment. Why not deduplicate these lines? > >> > >> I'm not sure what's the value of the "there are multiple streams to > >> this IP:PORT going on that circuit" information. At first glance, > >> I would say let's deduplicate, but perhaps I'm missing a use case > >> or three? > >> > > If I display duplicates, either I have a bug or there are multiple > > streams to this IP:port in that circuit... I can deduplicate them if > > requested but I fail to see the interest to complexify the > > code to simplify the reality. > > The interest is to have a more compact view displayed to the user and > reduce noise. Did you see my screenshot? To me it looks pretty awful. I > fail to see the interest in complexifying so much the interface to > simplify a bit the code :) Please file a ticket for that then. I'd suggest we don't consider it as a blocker thought. Cheers ___ Tails-dev mailing list Tails-dev@boum.org https://mailman.boum.org/listinfo/tails-dev To unsubscribe from this list, send an empty email to tails-dev-unsubscr...@boum.org.
