On Thursday 11 November 2010 00:26:37 [email protected] wrote: > 2010/11/10 Matthew Toseland <[email protected]> > > > On Saturday 06 November 2010 19:39:09 [email protected] wrote: > > > 2010/11/6 Ian Clarke <[email protected]> > > > > > > > On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 12:24 PM, Matthew Toseland < > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> Awesome. I'm having difficulty viewing the svg's due to local > > technical > > > >> problems. It might save me time if you could post JPEGs or something? > > > >> > > > > > > > > +1 for jpeg or png, I've tried viewing these in several different apps > > and > > > > they look screwed up in all of them. > > > > > > > > Yep, dunno why I didn't do that directly... (and svg should open fine > > in > > > inkscape). > > > Anyway, see attached. > > > > Ooooh, interesting. > > > > Thanks, wasn't sure it would be appreciated. > > > First, IMHO passwords should be optional. Maybe even configurable based on > > initial seclevels. We are not going to have separate client layer databases > > for each user, since we want everyone's downloads to work simultaneously - > > and most nodes will have one user, who may have multiple accounts for e.g. > > different chat pseudonyms. If passwords are disabled, we can have a simple > > dropdown login. > > > I'm not sure we should allow password-less accounts, maybe it makes sense > for users who don't really care about their anonymity though.
Eh? It's their own computer! The only reason to have a password is: 1) To encrypt the downloads, uploads, and client-cache separately for each account. This is an option but is quite heavyweight. 2) In case others have access without having root access i.e. for multi-user systems. Many people won't need either of these things. > We should add > a warning if they want to have a non protected access to their account. > Regarding the one-account/one-client-layer I agree. But one user shouldn't > be able to eavesdrop another user's download. Anyone who has physical/root access can see all the accounts very easily, unless we have separate encrypted client layer per account. > > What do you mean by dropdown login? If it's presenting user with different > possible login, I disagree, we should let the browser manage that. Like in > linux, if you don't know the username, well, too bad. Or, we could add > another layer => account => identity. Dunno if it makes sense. I was just thinking of making it easy, whatever... > > > Second, I like the idea of having a traffic light for darknet vs opennet vs > > connection problems. I'm happy to defer to folk who better understand > > usability on how to deal with system notifications, just as long as we do > > deal with them. > > > I don't have in mind any notification that can't be addressed to a specific > group of users. Do you have something in mind. (btw, and I don't know why I > didn't ask before, nor why I do ask now, but if someone could forward this > mockup to FMS/Freetalk/Frost, and have feedback from community (even if this > doesn't concern the apps currently covered by the mockup), it would be great > :) I'm not following. Most alerts concern Freenet itself. Some concern e.g. downloads, bookmarks; we can move them. And there's a difference between notifications/events and alerts; we can have pop-up notifications in the system tray for things like completed downloads? > > > I like the idea of searching forums, mails and friends. This implies adding > > more functionality, of course... A publish-to-friends files list, Freemail > > with a web interface and searching, and searching in Freetalk, and a way to > > tie them all together. Also eventually we will have WoT-based search - we > > still need to solve the "darknet friends" versus "anonymous friends" naming > > issue. > > > > I let that to native english speaker ;) > > > I'm not sure how much social-style functionality we want at the darknet > > level, since it's only visible to our friends? Although it might be > > propagated further configurably if some users wanted that? Not sure whether > > "user groups" makes sense... > > > Well, the idea behind user groups is to allow pure-darknet users to use it > event if they don't want to use WoT. > For instance: I use darknet, I use WoT because (fill in a reason), but I > still want that some informations I provide are relayed by my friends only > (or the friends of my friends, etc.). > > I have one problem though. How can we identify a darknet user who don't want > to use WoT but who still want his darknet "account" to be secure (i.e. I'm a > darknet user, but I don't want that people having access to my computer > being able to access my freenet session)? I'm not sure I understand. > > > For anonymous WoT-based peers, we need a profile page for each of the peers > > on the WoT, with trust levels, applications, any social stuff they publish > > etc... > > > Is that a problem? (I'm asking seriously, I don't have any idea) > The Web of Trust menu partly implements this but needs more work and is not very user friendly yet.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
