Am Mittwoch, 7. März 2012, 15:29:45 schrieb Ian Clarke: > > So what is the experience of new users? Install freenet, see automaticly > > shipped wot+freetalk, try them, see their issues, maybe browse some > > sites and uninstall freenet again, since things either do rarely work or > > there is no content. A cool web-UI wont change those points, so from my > > perspective, a different interface may be nice, but it wont solve the > > bigger issues with freenet. > > So again, you think that just because a new UI won't solve every problem > with Freenet, then we shouldn't do it? That's completely illogical.
If it creates more problems than it solves, it is a problem. Not being able to use freenet without Javascript would be a problem. Dillo has no Javascript support. Neither have w3m, lynx, and a whole bunch of other low- profile browsers. Mainly used by geeky people - who are a natural target audience for freenet. I don’t mind a good Javascript UI. But Sone was actually the first really useful example for that which I ever saw. Yahoo is a really good counter- example: they even reimplemented tabs in Javascript… Javascript has to be complementary, though: The UI has to work without it. And it can. After all, a reload of a local page is blazingly fast (when there are no other bottlenecks). Also there are many points on the UI side which could be improved that don’t need JS. Better download-queue, integrated WoT and Sone (well, that benefits from JS), and so on. On the other hand, drag-and-drop uploading with image previews and all that is quite a usability booster. So I am not against JS (anymore). I am just against requiring it. Best wishes, Arne -- Unpolitisch sein heißt politisch sein, ohne es zu merken. - Arne (http://draketo.de)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
