On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 2:32 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > 2010/10/11 Ian Clarke <[email protected]> > >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 4:47 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Each feature should be treated as a different application, like google, >>> gmail, google maps, etc... >>> >> >> I think there is much to be inspired by in Google's various apps, >> including their clean UIs, however the fact that they are separate largely >> isolated applications isn't one of them. I think Facebook is a better >> (although also imperfect) source of inspiration here. Also Facebook also >> has the paradigm of being connected to people, and has created metaphors >> around this that most people now understand intuitively. Its always better >> to piggy-back on metaphors people already understand, rather than trying to >> introduce new ones. >> >> Well, here are the reasons why I think google's metaphor fits better: > - Freenet is the network. Other things are just apps, I think we can agree > on that, >
That is an architectural distinction of concern to developers, but I don't think users will see it that way, nor should they. It is a common mistake to think that the best way to present an interface to the user is to mirror the underlying architecture. Users will view Freenet as a single application, not a group of applications sitting on top of a common platform. Our UI must reflect this. > - There is no link between those apps (Search/Filesharing/Friends > management/Discussion/Mail), > Why not? Why shouldn't search also return results from discussions and your freemail? Why shouldn't you be able to attach a file to a discussion, which would be downloaded through the filesharing mechanism? The lack of integration between Google's apps is a bug, not a feature to be emulated. This is why I still think Facebook is the separate metaphor. I don't think "oh, now I must switch to the Facebook Mail app so I can email my friend". Its all integrated. > - It allows us to have a specific design for every application, thus making > it clear and simple, whereas with Facebook-like UI, we always have the > surrounding context which doesn't represent anything, > Having a common integrated design is a feature, not a bug. As I've already pointed out, there are plenty of ways for the different aspects of Freenet to interoperate. Further, it is better to keep the UI as similar as possible between different parts of Freenet's functionality, rather than having a different design for each "application". > - It allows to decouple the network and the applications which run on it, > making it easier to reuse those applications in freesites, like using > Freetalk embedded in a freesite as a forum. > I don't think anything I've suggested would preclude this. > - Users won't see Freenet as a restricted version, like now, where Freenet > = FProxy essentially. It allows them to grasp more easily the concept of an > alternative network, and so not to be surprised when they see standalone > application like Frost/Thaw/Freemule, ... > I think trying to present Freenet to the user as a platform is the wrong approach. Sun made this exact mistake with Java, they tried to sell Java to users as a platform, but users don't care about platforms, they care about features that help them do stuff. > - We don't lose the integration between applications, look at gmail, where > google integrated youtube, documents, etc. when you receive a mail. We can > do the same thing, for instance, like now, recommend a file to a friend in > the filesharing application, showing up in the facebook-like application of > the friend. > Then I'm not sure what exactly you are arguing against. This is essentially what I'm proposing. > And I don't see anything that a facebook-like UI has to offer. > It has a lot of metaphors that are very relevant to the darknet, and also WoT, such as the concept of "friends". Its also very familiar to people, even more than Gmail is. > We should clearly have one for the Freenet "social application", using > friends and/or WoT, but I think it would limit Freenet to one application. > Moreover, we limit 3rd party apps who want to integrate to the UI. > Not at all, Facebook has third-party apps. > - While I was doing the mockup, I realized I was pretty much copying FProxy > (just reorganizing it), and I wondered if it wouldn't be best to lay down > some ground rules and concept, without thinking of FProxy at all. > I think a fresh perspective can be useful, but the sooner we have mockups the sooner the conversation will have some real substance. Ian. -- Ian Clarke CEO, SenseArray Email: [email protected] Ph: +1 512 422 3588
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
