On Monday 06 Aug 2012 20:51:19 irfan mir wrote: > The more I think about it, I like having the arrows because they info on > the user of the setting before they turn it on. > > I say we should keep the arrows. > > What do you all think?
They haven't confirmed it yet, so why not just have a single thing to click on to show the information *and* choose it? They'll have to click on another button to complete it anyway ... So no point in having more mouse clicks? On Monday 06 Aug 2012 18:21:02 irfan mir wrote: > Thank you all who supported and commented on my illustrations. > > How about we direct the user to / show a link to the current set-up > when scripts are disabled? Well, we already do that when they click custom. So that would be 2 layers of fallbacks and the new interface. But sure, if you can't easily adapt it for non-JS then by all means use the existing interface. Possibly we could render the existing interface in the <noscript>, it's not that big... > > Okay, and thats fine. So go ahead and start building it for modern > browsers then? -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20120806/c8061859/attachment.pgp>
