On Wednesday 22 April 2009 21:17:16 xor wrote: > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke > Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:58 PM > To: Discussion of development issues > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability > > > On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor <[email protected]> wrote: > > > We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to > use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which > use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun. > > > > I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical. I'd recomend getting some > non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out > anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense. I'd like to think > that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-) > > > The persons I've showed it to sit at their PC very much but are not experts. > I'd call them "power users", they are familiar with eMule etc. and do not > like wasting much time on configuring complex stuff. They were impressed by > the clear layout of the web interface and thought it was a good > representation of a p2p program.
This is also what esr said. But again he is hardly a non-geek! > > Anyway I've tried my best to point out anything which is difficult to use in > my bug reports. > > > > > We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the > terminology used, but newbies aren't. A term that makes perfect sense to > us, such as Matthew's use of the term "node" in the progress page, is likely > to confuse newbies. > > > "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because client > is the common word. Client is what connects to a node, no?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
