2010/10/12 Ian Clarke <[email protected]>
> 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.
>
>
I agree that users shouldn't care about the architectural design. But, I
also think that this distinction is fundamental, and easy to grasp (users
already do exactly that: configure their internet connection on whatever OS
they use, and then browse the web, use IMs, etc. And here, that's exactly
what we have: a network, and a bunch of apps using this network. It's
exactly the same thing, so why would it be more complicated? (the only thing
I can see is that users already configure their internet connections, so
they expect all apps using internet to just work))
> - 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.
>
>
Sure, but there is no shared principle between a mail client and a
filesharing application. For integration, see below.
> - 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".
>
>
I disagree on this. Sure, having a common theme is something very important,
so the user feels that he is in the same environment on all apps. But why do
I care that I have 15 friends connected when I'm writing my new blog
article? Sure, I care when a download finishes for instance, but that's what
the notification area of the OS is for.
> - 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.
>
True.
>
>
>> - 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.
>
>
Well, the user don't have to know the distinction, if it just feels natural
to connect to the network before using it. And I don't see why it's more
complicated than now.
Before:
- launch run.{sh,bat},
- browse Freenet.
After:
- launch run.{sh,bat},
- browse Freenet.
> - 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.
>
>
Yes, but what I'm arguing against is the common context. I just don't see
its purpose. Plus, when proposing a facebook-like UI, we orient from the
start towards a social-based software. But what about the majority of users
who don't use darknet? It doesn't add anything, and might even be confusing
since they will think Freenet doesn't work as they don't have any friends.
And when they have no friends, they're no point to offer a social oriented
UI. We should provide one, but as an apps. And an app which, like facebook,
integrate with all the other apps (recommend, add to the wall, etc.).
> 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.
>
>
That's my point. It's relevant to darknet (and WoT, yeah, forgot about this
one). But Freenet is more than that. It could be an incentive to use darknet
and WoT, but it could also scare some potential users off. For instance, it
took me a long time before having an account on facebook, because I just
didn't have any interest in social networks (and I want to stress that it is
not the reason I'm against a facebook-like interface (since I think we
should have one for darknet/arguably WoT)
> 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.
>
>
Yes, but maybe I didn't use enough of them, but they're embedded in the
facebook interface, and are mostly games and flash-based apps. I find that a
bit limited. (but it might just be I'm not familiar enough with facebook)
> - 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.
>
> Sure, I'll try to do this asap. I'm finishing a project, so next week I
won't have anything else to do. Who knows, maybe we have something similar
in mind (we already agree on integration and a common look n feel), so a
mockup will definitely settles that. So, let's continue this once I have a
mockup to show ;)
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
