On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 19:40:56 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Wed, Mar 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org>wrote: > > > On Wednesday 07 Mar 2012 17:18:54 Ian Clarke wrote: > > > Unless those freenet devs are willing to build the GUI themselves, I > > > recommend that you do not allow them to prevent you from proceeding. > > > Someone willing to make things happen should not be prevented from doing > > > so by someone with an opinion, but who isn't willing to do the work. > > > > Even if it means breaking existing code for a large minority of users? > > (The whole no-javascript lobby)? > > Yes, the vast number of people that refuse to use anything but Lynx? There > is RMS, who are the other ones? So far as I know RMS doesn't use Freenet > so we don't have to worry about him. > > But seriously, it would be insanity to hold up development of a decent user > interface just because of the griping of a few people who, for no logical > reason, refuse to enable JavaScript in their browsers.
Last time I asked, just about everyone actively using FMS who commented on the matter was of the view that for Freenet to *require* javascript would be utterly unacceptable. Aggravating your core userbase is usually a bad strategy, even if you hope that you might gain casual users to replace them eventually. IMHO it is important - not necessarily of primary importance, but an important consideration - not to alienate what is at present, and probably in future, an important demographic - paranoid (justifiably or not) semi-techie users. -------------- 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/20120309/25d66016/attachment.pgp>
