-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03/12/2013 04:08 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 12 Mar 2013 19:42:28 irfan mir wrote: [snip] >> So, I am confused on which implementation Freenet is looking for: >> 1.) Questions that result in options or 2.) Questions that >> result in only one-option that is automatically chosen. But then >> the user has to entre their security preferences in the form that >> appears. >> >> Please let me know, which option is most popular. Personally and >> with my experience, I think the first option is better. That is, >> because I can see the user being confused when they see the >> security option chosen without them having chosen it. But, it is >> the rest of the dev team's call.
This proposal is neither 1) nor 2). Matthew and I discussed things in #freenet. He approves of a new first run setup which consists of a single page with small number of questions about the user's security concerns to determine their settings. [0] It is separate from and does not add to or replace parts of the existing one. (The existing one could be a fallback if there is no Javascript.) >> Also, what questions and how many questions are to be asked. I >> think we should keep it under 5 if possible. The current draft (below) has 2 checkboxes and 5 radio buttons. > Yes. That's why we don't want to have NORMAL vs LOW or HIGH vs > MAXIMUM. It's an extra question that most users don't need to > worry about. The current code just does LOW or HIGH (with some > extra options). Users with particular needs should use the old, > more detailed wizard (custom settings button). Good call. This is reflected in the elaboration below. > Probably we should warn users about opennet at some point. We > probably do that already? Explicitly? Sure. Any ideas where? It's already called connecting with "untrusted strangers," which is a warning of some kind. Is a warning in the elaboration of that question enough? To expand on that, I summon ASCII art: - ------------------- | _Freenet Setup_ | |-----------------| |Detailed settings| |-----------------| "Freenet Setup" is a larger title. "Detailed settings" is smaller and a link to the current "custom" setup. (Or a re-imagined AJAXy equivalent.) The ">>" after most options expands to further explanation about the question. |----------------------------------------| |[ ] I know someone who runs Freenet. >> | |[ ] I am willing to connect with | | untrusted strangers. >> | |----------------------------------------| The first question, when checked, gives an option to add someone's darknet node reference, and if we ever get invite bundles this should probably do something encouraging like already be checked and list the friend who generated the invite. The second question sets network security to normal if checked. If "I know someone who runs Freenet" is checked and "I am willing to connect with untrusted strangers" is not, network security is set to high. If neither one is checked they have no one to connect to and cannot complete the first run setup. How is this best represented - having the second question checked by default? |----------------------------------------| | O I have a bandwidth cap. >> | | O I want Freenet to use up to [ ] KiB/s| | download and [ ] KiB/s upload. | |----------------------------------------| In the case of a bandwidth cap, it one possibility is for "[ ] GiB per month" to slide out from under it. Would it make more sense to have the option itself be "I have a bandwidth cap of [ ] GiB per month."? I'm specifying units outside of the blank with the understanding that asking someone to specify units is annoying and a source of common errors. The download/upload fields should be filled with an auto-detected limit if the node can find one. For both of these possible error conditions are limits that are too low. |----------------------------------------| | O I do not want to set a passphrase. | | O I want Freenet to require an encryp- | | tion passphrase when it starts. >> | | O I want Freenet to lose encryption | | keys when closed. >> | |----------------------------------------| The first sets "low" physical security, keeping "none" a custom setting. Matthew pointed out that even if someone is using full-disk encryption, it's still advisable to have Freenet use some on-disk encryption to secure temporary files, so there's no need to ask about it. The second sets "high" physical security and prompts (slide from underneath?) for a passphrase (and confirmation of course). The third sets "maximum" physical security. I think it's worth considering the Android user interface writing style guidelines. [1] This would mean using second person and working toward extreme conciseness (30-character limit) while avoiding confusing language. My attempt at following these: "Connect with a friend" "Connect with untrusted strangers" "Limit monthly bandwidth to [ ] GiB" "Use [ ] KiB/s download and [ ] KiB/s upload" "Set a passphrase: [ ] Confirm: [ ]" "Lose encryption keys when closed" Perhaps this is better-suited for mobile devices? It seems like it might be easier to understand. Steve [0] http://code.bulix.org/92ac13-83133?raw [1] https://developer.android.com/design/style/writing.html -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJRRAluAAoJECLJP19KqmFu1lcQANF/oApTFV4kLG/Az9RI+Rj9 jXAWWLiAZ+uknPx+VUk8nYz5zcPtOAa/YLqs3O1BgXydQA8pBu/gBq4DMtv0NsAY bWiaXDzT9ultFOgQj/kll55eZRs2QTF7xMbRB+yfh/QRHU3ifOJxvV/BJylMH2nM yJjJI1KI030d6k91X51JFg0wy6bXP3+s4WqGv1qQ1tv2kzuTw3P1CIktKdEEns3a vvAERy5iMGAKQZD6AIFgZAcKm6H5viYBPHi4WpiacX3805Rst21Jpu9Ro6DnIUbF VU1AyXgiwQpmML18/mhY3dxEObjxT63un//JfksoEk672zWEHz6rtndAv1kNqNfE elu9mVdLBVj9PohpJAclfX7OiVlu8vVgi1rjve6+vbO3YSNxkDyQbA0HfBZVrPVb dYkzUKPoozRAqLHxmF4zorPsJrrjpW+FnojuKq4qqJWoqyP257DfKmG/6FojBfz0 7XTgp1OYIPjQlN0+v5mmjg8hJwUK1Gf7gSM09aSSV4wMxBIpHaDflmx/WgUYshad kNGph7gfMz50MB9Z7VaTgxsRK2PNrkVkHrwazY3Enz0je6jpbFMnYhFaMk0pRFhb Xkgxdn63g3r3qzB6yB3sd0UvPaivyNLOPUsoXNgvRogLBKxpWZeA/EcQ0nZ0f/VJ FxYA9knXb//+Q6GG5496 =R49v -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
