[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
>  wrote:
> >> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm 
referring
> >> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
> >> use in this context may be "software".
> >>
> > Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading this 
page
> > from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is 
downloading
> > this page from the Freenet network" ?
> 
> "Freenet is downloading this page from the Freenet network"
> 
> Speaking plain English isn't brain surgery (or it shouldn't be)!

You are right.

"Freenet is downloading this page from the network".
> 
> Ian.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 24 April 2009 11:48:35 Theodore Hong wrote:
> Matthew Toseland  wrote:
> > On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor  wrote:
> >> > ?"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
> >> > client is the common word.
> >>
> >> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm 
referring
> >> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
> >> use in this context may be "software".
> >>
> > Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading this 
page
> > from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is 
downloading
> > this page from the Freenet network" ?
> 
> How about, "Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet"?
> theo

How about "we are downloading this page from Freenet" ? :)

I like "Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet", but then the 
next string would be:

"Your computer is checking your local cache for this page or file. If it is 
not stored there, it will try to download it from Freenet."

IMHO Freenet as a piece of software makes sense from a user's point of view, 
like Word. And then "the [Freenet] network" for the network. So maybe:

Freenet is downloading this page

Freenet is checking your local cache for this page or file. If it is not 
found, it will try to download it from the network.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Zero3]

Ian Clarke skrev:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor mailto:xor at gmx.li>> 
> wrote:
> 
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins
> which
> use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
> 
> 
> I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical.  I'd recomend getting some 
> non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out 
> anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense.  I'd like to 
> think that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-)
> 
> We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the 
> terminology used, but newbies aren't.  A term that makes perfect sense 
> to us, such as Matthew's use of the term "node" in the progress page, is 
> likely to confuse newbies.
> 
> I think to create a good UI, we need to mistrust our personal 
> perceptions of what makes sense, because, frankly, we aren't our target 
> audience.  I'd encourage everyone to find newbies whenever possible, and 
> watch them install and try to use Freenet, reporting any issues they run 
> into to this list, or as bugs.  Get them to give you a narrative of what 
> they see ("not sure what that button does" or "hmm, not sure what I'm 
> supposed to do now"), and report it.  Anything you need to explain to 
> them is a *bug*, because most of our future users won't have you sitting 
> there to explain it.
> 
> I'd prefer to avoid a ground-up redesign of the UI too, but for anyone 
> that wants to work on the UI, please grab a friend or relative 
> unfamiliar with Freenet, and watch them trying to install or use it.
> 
> Ian.

Random comment from me:

As far as I know (I might be wrong - if so, please correct me) it is 
nearly impossible to mod fproxy without digging into java code.

I still think it would be a good idea to have a theming engine, or at 
the very least an easily available CSS file so people actually *can* 
work on fproxy design without having to recompile the whole thing.

- Zero3

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 24 April 2009 11:48:35 Theodore Hong wrote:
 Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
  On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
    Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
   client is the common word.
 
  Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm 
referring
  to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
  use in this context may be software.
 
  Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading this 
page
  from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is 
downloading
  this page from the Freenet network ?
 
 How about, Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet?
 theo

How about we are downloading this page from Freenet ? :)

I like Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet, but then the 
next string would be:

Your computer is checking your local cache for this page or file. If it is 
not stored there, it will try to download it from Freenet.

IMHO Freenet as a piece of software makes sense from a user's point of view, 
like Word. And then the [Freenet] network for the network. So maybe:

Freenet is downloading this page

Freenet is checking your local cache for this page or file. If it is not 
found, it will try to download it from the network.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
 t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm 
referring
  to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
  use in this context may be software.
 
  Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading this 
page
  from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is 
downloading
  this page from the Freenet network ?
 
 Freenet is downloading this page from the Freenet network
 
 Speaking plain English isn't brain surgery (or it shouldn't be)!

You are right.

Freenet is downloading this page from the network.
 
 Ian.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 22:05:18 schrieb Robert Hailey:
> > "The Freenet software running on your computer" is probably what I
> > would use to describe what "node" means to non-techy users.
> > Couldn't it just use "Your computer is downloading this page from
> > Freenet", that's what people want to know, 

It creates a problem in Germany, since we also have a hosting company named 
freenet. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de
-- 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: 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Caco Patane]

> It creates a problem in Germany, since we also have a hosting company named
> freenet.

I've got Google Alerts running on 'freenet' and 90%+ of each day
results are from the german ISP/Hosting company, I think we can't do
anything about it. =/

I saw that Freenet's website has the verify code of Google Webmaster
Tools, what the diagnostic says about repeated title pages,
unreacheable urls and so on? That tool is usually used working with
SEO related issues.

Saludos,
Caco_Patane 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Theodore Hong]

Matthew Toseland  wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor  wrote:
>> > ?"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
>> > client is the common word.
>>
>> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
>> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
>> use in this context may be "software".
>>
> Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading this page
> from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading
> this page from the Freenet network" ?

How about, "Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet"?
theo

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
>  wrote:
> >> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm 
referring
> >> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
> >> use in this context may be "software".
> >>
> > Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading this 
page
> > from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is 
downloading
> > this page from the Freenet network" ?
> 
> "Freenet is downloading this page from the Freenet network"

Ewww.
> 
> Speaking plain English isn't brain surgery (or it shouldn't be)!

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Theodore Hong]

Matthew Toseland t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
   Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
  client is the common word.

 Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
 to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
 use in this context may be software.

 Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading this page
 from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading
 this page from the Freenet network ?

How about, Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet?
theo
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

Am Donnerstag 23 April 2009 22:05:18 schrieb Robert Hailey:
  The Freenet software running on your computer is probably what I
  would use to describe what node means to non-techy users.
  Couldn't it just use Your computer is downloading this page from
  Freenet, that's what people want to know, 

It creates a problem in Germany, since we also have a hosting company named 
freenet. 

Best wishes, 
Arne

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- 
   - singing a part of the history of free software -
  http://infinite-hands.draketo.de


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Caco Patane]

 It creates a problem in Germany, since we also have a hosting company named
 freenet.

I've got Google Alerts running on 'freenet' and 90%+ of each day
results are from the german ISP/Hosting company, I think we can't do
anything about it. =/

I saw that Freenet's website has the verify code of Google Webmaster
Tools, what the diagnostic says about repeated title pages,
unreacheable urls and so on? That tool is usually used working with
SEO related issues.

Saludos,
Caco_Patane !
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Zero3]

Ian Clarke skrev:
 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor x...@gmx.li mailto:x...@gmx.li wrote:
 
 We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
 use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins
 which
 use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
 
 
 I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical.  I'd recomend getting some 
 non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out 
 anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense.  I'd like to 
 think that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-)
 
 We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the 
 terminology used, but newbies aren't.  A term that makes perfect sense 
 to us, such as Matthew's use of the term node in the progress page, is 
 likely to confuse newbies.
 
 I think to create a good UI, we need to mistrust our personal 
 perceptions of what makes sense, because, frankly, we aren't our target 
 audience.  I'd encourage everyone to find newbies whenever possible, and 
 watch them install and try to use Freenet, reporting any issues they run 
 into to this list, or as bugs.  Get them to give you a narrative of what 
 they see (not sure what that button does or hmm, not sure what I'm 
 supposed to do now), and report it.  Anything you need to explain to 
 them is a *bug*, because most of our future users won't have you sitting 
 there to explain it.
 
 I'd prefer to avoid a ground-up redesign of the UI too, but for anyone 
 that wants to work on the UI, please grab a friend or relative 
 unfamiliar with Freenet, and watch them trying to install or use it.
 
 Ian.

Random comment from me:

As far as I know (I might be wrong - if so, please correct me) it is 
nearly impossible to mod fproxy without digging into java code.

I still think it would be a good idea to have a theming engine, or at 
the very least an easily available CSS file so people actually *can* 
work on fproxy design without having to recompile the whole thing.

- Zero3
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Mike Bush]

Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>   
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor  wrote:
>>
>> 
>>>  "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
>>> client is the common word.
>>>   
>> Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
>> to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
>> use in this context may be "software".
>>
>> 
> Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading this page 
> from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading 
> this page from the Freenet network" ?
>   

"The Freenet software running on your computer" is probably what I would use to 
describe what "node" means to non-techy users.
Couldn't it just use "Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet", 
that's what people want to know, just that the stuff they are downloading will 
be on their computer soon.


>>> I also think that some words should be replaced. I did that for a few
>>> things in my last few commits. Further, for example I suggested to replace
>>> "Key" with "Download link" on the downloads & uploads page.
>>>   
>> Yes, or perhaps just "link".
>>
>> Ian.
>> 
>> 
>>
>> ___
>> Devl mailing list
>> Devl at freenetproject.org
>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert Hailey
 wrote:
> Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as
> "your node" implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas
> "freenet is downloading" makes it sound like a monolithic entity).

Technically accurate flavor is secondary to making newbies feel
comfortable.  Newbies are made comfortable by using plain English, and
avoiding terms of art.

Here is a good resource on examples of jargon versus plain English:

  http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/examples/before_and_after.html

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
 wrote:
>> Is it? ?When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
>> to the person that employs a lawyer. ?I think the least confusing term to
>> use in this context may be "software".
>>
> Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading this page
> from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading
> this page from the Freenet network" ?

"Freenet is downloading this page from the Freenet network"

Speaking plain English isn't brain surgery (or it shouldn't be)!

Ian.


-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor  wrote:
> 
> >  "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
> > client is the common word.
> 
> Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
> to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
> use in this context may be "software".
> 
Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading this page 
from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading 
this page from the Freenet network" ?
> 
> > I also think that some words should be replaced. I did that for a few
> > things in my last few commits. Further, for example I suggested to replace
> > "Key" with "Download link" on the downloads & uploads page.
> 
> Yes, or perhaps just "link".
> 
> Ian.
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Robert Hailey]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Mike Bush wrote:

> Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor  wrote:
>>>
>>>
 "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
 client is the common word.

>>> Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm  
>>> referring
>>> to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing  
>>> term to
>>> use in this context may be "software".
>>>
>>>
>> Very clumbersome. How would you translate "Your node is downloading  
>> this page
>> from Freenet" ? "The Freenet software running on your computer is  
>> downloading
>> this page from the Freenet network" ?
>>
>
> "The Freenet software running on your computer" is probably what I  
> would use to describe what "node" means to non-techy users.
> Couldn't it just use "Your computer is downloading this page from  
> Freenet", that's what people want to know, just that the stuff they  
> are downloading will be on their computer soon.

Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as  
"your node" implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas  
"freenet is downloading" makes it sound like a monolithic entity).

--
Robert Hailey

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Wednesday 22 April 2009 21:17:16 xor wrote:
> 
>   _  
> 
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:58 PM
> To: Discussion of development issues
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
> 
> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor  wrote:
> 
> 
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
> use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
> 
> 
> 
> I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical.  I'd recomend getting some
> non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out
> anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense.  I'd like to think
> that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-)
>  
> 
> The persons I've showed it to sit at their PC very much but are not experts.
> I'd call them "power users", they are familiar with eMule etc. and do not
> like wasting much time on configuring complex stuff. They were impressed by
> the clear layout of the web interface and thought it was a good
> representation of a p2p program. 

This is also what esr said. But again he is hardly a non-geek!
>  
> Anyway I've tried my best to point out anything which is difficult to use in
> my bug reports.
>  
> 
> 
> 
> We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the
> terminology used, but newbies aren't.  A term that makes perfect sense to
> us, such as Matthew's use of the term "node" in the progress page, is likely
> to confuse newbies. 
>  
> 
> "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because client
> is the common word.

Client is what connects to a node, no?
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090423/cd01fb3c/attachment.pgp>

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
 
   Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
  client is the common word.
 
 Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
 to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
 use in this context may be software.
 
Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading this page 
from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading 
this page from the Freenet network ?
 
  I also think that some words should be replaced. I did that for a few
  things in my last few commits. Further, for example I suggested to replace
  Key with Download link on the downloads  uploads page.
 
 Yes, or perhaps just link.
 
 Ian.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Mike Bush]

Matthew Toseland wrote:
 On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:
   
 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:

 
  Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
 client is the common word.
   
 Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
 to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
 use in this context may be software.

 
 Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading this page 
 from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading 
 this page from the Freenet network ?
   

The Freenet software running on your computer is probably what I would use to 
describe what node means to non-techy users.
Couldn't it just use Your computer is downloading this page from Freenet, 
that's what people want to know, just that the stuff they are downloading will 
be on their computer soon.


 I also think that some words should be replaced. I did that for a few
 things in my last few commits. Further, for example I suggested to replace
 Key with Download link on the downloads  uploads page.
   
 Yes, or perhaps just link.

 Ian.
 
 

 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl


This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Robert Hailey]

On Apr 23, 2009, at 2:22 PM, Mike Bush wrote:

 Matthew Toseland wrote:
 On Thursday 23 April 2009 00:05:40 Ian Clarke wrote:

 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:


 Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
 client is the common word.

 Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm  
 referring
 to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing  
 term to
 use in this context may be software.


 Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading  
 this page
 from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is  
 downloading
 this page from the Freenet network ?


 The Freenet software running on your computer is probably what I  
 would use to describe what node means to non-techy users.
 Couldn't it just use Your computer is downloading this page from  
 Freenet, that's what people want to know, just that the stuff they  
 are downloading will be on their computer soon.

Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as  
your node implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas  
freenet is downloading makes it sound like a monolithic entity).

--
Robert Hailey

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
 Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
 to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
 use in this context may be software.

 Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading this page
 from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is downloading
 this page from the Freenet network ?

Freenet is downloading this page from the Freenet network

Speaking plain English isn't brain surgery (or it shouldn't be)!

Ian.


-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 3:05 PM, Robert Hailey
rob...@freenetproject.org wrote:
 Yea, but Matthew's language has a more technically-accurate flavor (as
 your node implies the distributed nature of freenet, whereas
 freenet is downloading makes it sound like a monolithic entity).

Technically accurate flavor is secondary to making newbies feel
comfortable.  Newbies are made comfortable by using plain English, and
avoiding terms of art.

Here is a good resource on examples of jargon versus plain English:

  http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/examples/before_and_after.html

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Friday 24 April 2009 00:44:59 Ian Clarke wrote:
 On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 10:28 AM, Matthew Toseland
 t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
  Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm 
referring
  to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
  use in this context may be software.
 
  Very clumbersome. How would you translate Your node is downloading this 
page
  from Freenet ? The Freenet software running on your computer is 
downloading
  this page from the Freenet network ?
 
 Freenet is downloading this page from the Freenet network

Ewww.
 
 Speaking plain English isn't brain surgery (or it shouldn't be)!
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[xor]

  _  

From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
[mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:58 PM
To: Discussion of development issues
Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability


On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor  wrote:


We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.



I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical.  I'd recomend getting some
non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out
anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense.  I'd like to think
that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-)


The persons I've showed it to sit at their PC very much but are not experts.
I'd call them "power users", they are familiar with eMule etc. and do not
like wasting much time on configuring complex stuff. They were impressed by
the clear layout of the web interface and thought it was a good
representation of a p2p program. 

Anyway I've tried my best to point out anything which is difficult to use in
my bug reports.




We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the
terminology used, but newbies aren't.  A term that makes perfect sense to
us, such as Matthew's use of the term "node" in the progress page, is likely
to confuse newbies. 


"Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because client
is the common word.

I also think that some words should be replaced. I did that for a few things
in my last few commits. Further, for example I suggested to replace "Key"
with "Download link" on the downloads & uploads page. I think there is more
stuff I can help with if I take the time to read all strings in the english
language file. I can also help with the German translation as I am a native
German speaker.

But of course we won't need to rewrite any code for replacing the words so
lets just do that :)

I think to create a good UI, we need to mistrust our personal perceptions of
what makes sense, because, frankly, we aren't our target audience.  


True. I claim to be able to imagine in some way what a newbie might behave
like ;) And I know some newbies. 

 I'd encourage everyone to find newbies whenever possible, and watch them
install and try to use Freenet, reporting any issues they run into to this
list, or as bugsGet them to give you a narrative of what they see ("not
sure what that button does" or "hmm, not sure what I'm supposed to do now"),
and report it. Anything you need to explain to them is a *bug*, because most
of our future users won't have you sitting there to explain it. 


Always trying to do so.

I'd prefer to avoid a ground-up redesign of the UI too, but for anyone that
wants to work on the UI, please grab a friend or relative unfamiliar with
Freenet, and watch them trying to install or use it.


Okay good. As I've said, my basic point is that it would cost us too much
resources as the current interfaces are quite useful for developers and the
outcome of it is useful to users and can be made even better if we fix a few
glitches and add some scripting which hopefully our GSoC people will be able
to do =)


Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674


-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090422/4dd020aa/attachment.html>

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor  wrote:

>  "Node" should really be replaced with "Client" *everywhere* because
> client is the common word.
>

Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a "client" they think I'm referring
to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
use in this context may be "software".


> I also think that some words should be replaced. I did that for a few
> things in my last few commits. Further, for example I suggested to replace
> "Key" with "Download link" on the downloads & uploads page.
>

Yes, or perhaps just "link".

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[sashee]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM, xor  wrote:
>
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org
>> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of sashee
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:25 PM
>> To: Discussion of development issues
>> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
>>
>> Hi xor!
>>
>> As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web
>> interface this summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
>> My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and
>> make it different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily
>> means introducing server pushing, and it just means, that the
>> pages are updated automatically, without the need of
>> reloading. My favorite example for this is Gmail: you keep it
>> open, and you see the new mails. I think it too, that the
>> current layout is usable, and have no intentions to change
>> it(and btw, I'm a programmer and not a designer).
>> Because of the above, the users won't experience redesign,
>> change of layout, or usability decreases.
>
> Sounds great.
> Could you have a look at the usuability issues which I have filed in the bug
> tracker and decide whether you could fix them first, in trunk, so we can
> have them released with 0.8? 0.8 will have to be released before GSoC is
> finished.

I'll fix some issues in the following weeks, till the gsoc coding
starts. But as I'm a student, I'm kinda busy with my studies.

>
>>
>> >From the developer's(most likely plugin developer's) view, these
>> changes will affect most of the web API, so some rewriting
>> will most likely will be needed. As the GSoC results have
>> just been announced, I have no clear plans for the
>> implementation, but they will be discussed in the mailing
>> list. I'm sure we will come up with a solution that is both
>> effective and easy to implement plugins' interfaces for.
>>
>> Greetings, sashee
>
> That is okay. However, you should consider working on your own branch in SVN
> and not in trunk because we need to get trunk finished and stable to be able
> to release 0.8. Is that okay?
>
> Your dynamic javascript stuff could also help me with Freetalk, dynmic
> notifications upon message retrieval, etc.

Branching is fine.
I'm sure these dynamics will do a good job in many places:)

sashee

>
> Greetings, xor
>
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, xor  wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi folks,
>> >
>> > I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web
>> interface
>> > and I would like to state my opinion on that:
>> >
>> > We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web
>> interface is easy
>> > to use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write
>> > plugins which use it - I've worked with it for WoT and
>> Freetalk and it was fun.
>> >
>> > I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and
>> > they all said "Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web
>> > interface, most file sharing applications do not have such
>> a powerful one".
>> >
>> > The current web interface just needs a few usability
>> improvements and
>> > maybe a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now
>> would IMHO
>> > be a major waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They
>> > should first concentrate on getting the core features of
>> Freenet rock
>> > solid, fixing bugs, etc. As soon as we cannot think of any
>> core stuff
>> > which has to be done anymore we can write a new web
>> interface but for
>> > now this would be a major waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF
>> > USERS if we do not release a stable
>> > 0.8 soon.
>> >
>> > To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have
>> already filed >
>> > 10 bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy.
>> I'm trying
>> > to find every little piece which is confusing, every word
>> which is not
>> > well chosen and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to
>> > work on the web interface, go to the usability category on
>> > bugs.freenetproject.org
>> >
>> > Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and
>> > improved some of the english ones, and here is my idea how
>> to improve
>> > the UI user experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should
>> have that idea on his mind:
>> >
>> > https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030
>> >
>> > Greetings, xor
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Devl mailing list
>> > Devl at freenetproject.org
>> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>> >
>> ___
>> Devl mailing list
>> Devl at freenetproject.org
>> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[xor]

> -Original Message-
> From: devl-bounces at freenetproject.org 
> [mailto:devl-bounces at freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of sashee
> Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:25 PM
> To: Discussion of development issues
> Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
> 
> Hi xor!
> 
> As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web 
> interface this summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
> My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and 
> make it different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily 
> means introducing server pushing, and it just means, that the 
> pages are updated automatically, without the need of 
> reloading. My favorite example for this is Gmail: you keep it 
> open, and you see the new mails. I think it too, that the 
> current layout is usable, and have no intentions to change 
> it(and btw, I'm a programmer and not a designer).
> Because of the above, the users won't experience redesign, 
> change of layout, or usability decreases.

Sounds great.
Could you have a look at the usuability issues which I have filed in the bug
tracker and decide whether you could fix them first, in trunk, so we can
have them released with 0.8? 0.8 will have to be released before GSoC is
finished.

> 
> >From the developer's(most likely plugin developer's) view, these
> changes will affect most of the web API, so some rewriting 
> will most likely will be needed. As the GSoC results have 
> just been announced, I have no clear plans for the 
> implementation, but they will be discussed in the mailing 
> list. I'm sure we will come up with a solution that is both 
> effective and easy to implement plugins' interfaces for.
> 
> Greetings, sashee

That is okay. However, you should consider working on your own branch in SVN
and not in trunk because we need to get trunk finished and stable to be able
to release 0.8. Is that okay?

Your dynamic javascript stuff could also help me with Freetalk, dynmic
notifications upon message retrieval, etc.

Greetings, xor

> 
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, xor  wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> > I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web 
> interface 
> > and I would like to state my opinion on that:
> >
> > We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web 
> interface is easy 
> > to use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write 
> > plugins which use it - I've worked with it for WoT and 
> Freetalk and it was fun.
> >
> > I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and 
> > they all said "Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web 
> > interface, most file sharing applications do not have such 
> a powerful one".
> >
> > The current web interface just needs a few usability 
> improvements and 
> > maybe a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now 
> would IMHO 
> > be a major waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They 
> > should first concentrate on getting the core features of 
> Freenet rock 
> > solid, fixing bugs, etc. As soon as we cannot think of any 
> core stuff 
> > which has to be done anymore we can write a new web 
> interface but for 
> > now this would be a major waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF 
> > USERS if we do not release a stable
> > 0.8 soon.
> >
> > To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have 
> already filed > 
> > 10 bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. 
> I'm trying 
> > to find every little piece which is confusing, every word 
> which is not 
> > well chosen and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to 
> > work on the web interface, go to the usability category on 
> > bugs.freenetproject.org
> >
> > Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and 
> > improved some of the english ones, and here is my idea how 
> to improve 
> > the UI user experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should 
> have that idea on his mind:
> >
> > https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030
> >
> > Greetings, xor
> >
> > ___
> > Devl mailing list
> > Devl at freenetproject.org
> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> >
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Wednesday 22 April 2009 12:05:51 xor wrote:
> 
> Hi folks,
> 
> I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
> would like to state my opinion on that:
> 
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
> use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
> 
> I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and they all
> said "Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web interface, most file
> sharing applications do not have such a powerful one".
> 
> The current web interface just needs a few usability improvements and maybe
> a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now would IMHO be a major
> waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They should first
> concentrate on getting the core features of Freenet rock solid, fixing bugs,
> etc. As soon as we cannot think of any core stuff which has to be done
> anymore we can write a new web interface but for now this would be a major
> waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF USERS if we do not release a stable
> 0.8 soon.
> 
> To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have already filed > 10
> bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. I'm trying to find
> every little piece which is confusing, every word which is not well chosen
> and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to work on the web
> interface, go to the usability category on bugs.freenetproject.org
> 
> Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and improved
> some of the english ones, and here is my idea how to improve the UI user
> experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should have that idea on his mind: 
> 
> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030

There is also a bug called "UI changes" which links to lots of minor graphical 
changes.
> 
> Greetings, xor
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 835 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[sashee]

Hi xor!

As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web interface this
summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and make it
different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily means introducing
server pushing, and it just means, that the pages are updated
automatically, without the need of reloading. My favorite example for
this is Gmail: you keep it open, and you see the new mails. I think it
too, that the current layout is usable, and have no intentions to
change it(and btw, I'm a programmer and not a designer).
Because of the above, the users won't experience redesign, change of
layout, or usability decreases.

>From the developer's(most likely plugin developer's) view, these
changes will affect most of the web API, so some rewriting will most
likely will be needed. As the GSoC results have just been announced, I
have no clear plans for the implementation, but they will be discussed
in the mailing list. I'm sure we will come up with a solution that is
both effective and easy to implement plugins' interfaces for.

Greetings, sashee

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, xor  wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
> would like to state my opinion on that:
>
> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
> use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
>
> I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and they all
> said "Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web interface, most file
> sharing applications do not have such a powerful one".
>
> The current web interface just needs a few usability improvements and maybe
> a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now would IMHO be a major
> waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They should first
> concentrate on getting the core features of Freenet rock solid, fixing bugs,
> etc. As soon as we cannot think of any core stuff which has to be done
> anymore we can write a new web interface but for now this would be a major
> waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF USERS if we do not release a stable
> 0.8 soon.
>
> To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have already filed > 10
> bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. I'm trying to find
> every little piece which is confusing, every word which is not well chosen
> and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to work on the web
> interface, go to the usability category on bugs.freenetproject.org
>
> Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and improved
> some of the english ones, and here is my idea how to improve the UI user
> experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should have that idea on his mind:
>
> https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030
>
> Greetings, xor
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[xor]

Hi folks,

I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
would like to state my opinion on that:

We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.

I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and they all
said "Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web interface, most file
sharing applications do not have such a powerful one".

The current web interface just needs a few usability improvements and maybe
a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now would IMHO be a major
waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They should first
concentrate on getting the core features of Freenet rock solid, fixing bugs,
etc. As soon as we cannot think of any core stuff which has to be done
anymore we can write a new web interface but for now this would be a major
waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF USERS if we do not release a stable
0.8 soon.

To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have already filed > 10
bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. I'm trying to find
every little piece which is confusing, every word which is not well chosen
and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to work on the web
interface, go to the usability category on bugs.freenetproject.org

Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and improved
some of the english ones, and here is my idea how to improve the UI user
experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should have that idea on his mind: 

https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030

Greetings, xor

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor  wrote:

> We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
> use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
> use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
>

I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical.  I'd recomend getting some
non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out
anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense.  I'd like to think
that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-)

We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the
terminology used, but newbies aren't.  A term that makes perfect sense to
us, such as Matthew's use of the term "node" in the progress page, is likely
to confuse newbies.

I think to create a good UI, we need to mistrust our personal perceptions of
what makes sense, because, frankly, we aren't our target audience.  I'd
encourage everyone to find newbies whenever possible, and watch them install
and try to use Freenet, reporting any issues they run into to this list, or
as bugs.  Get them to give you a narrative of what they see ("not sure what
that button does" or "hmm, not sure what I'm supposed to do now"), and
report it.  Anything you need to explain to them is a *bug*, because most of
our future users won't have you sitting there to explain it.

I'd prefer to avoid a ground-up redesign of the UI too, but for anyone that
wants to work on the UI, please grab a friend or relative unfamiliar with
Freenet, and watch them trying to install or use it.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: ian at uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
-- next part --
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

[freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[xor]

Hi folks,

I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
would like to state my opinion on that:

We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.

I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and they all
said Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web interface, most file
sharing applications do not have such a powerful one.

The current web interface just needs a few usability improvements and maybe
a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now would IMHO be a major
waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They should first
concentrate on getting the core features of Freenet rock solid, fixing bugs,
etc. As soon as we cannot think of any core stuff which has to be done
anymore we can write a new web interface but for now this would be a major
waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF USERS if we do not release a stable
0.8 soon.

To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have already filed  10
bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. I'm trying to find
every little piece which is confusing, every word which is not well chosen
and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to work on the web
interface, go to the usability category on bugs.freenetproject.org

Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and improved
some of the english ones, and here is my idea how to improve the UI user
experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should have that idea on his mind: 

https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030

Greetings, xor

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[sashee]

Hi xor!

As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web interface this
summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and make it
different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily means introducing
server pushing, and it just means, that the pages are updated
automatically, without the need of reloading. My favorite example for
this is Gmail: you keep it open, and you see the new mails. I think it
too, that the current layout is usable, and have no intentions to
change it(and btw, I'm a programmer and not a designer).
Because of the above, the users won't experience redesign, change of
layout, or usability decreases.

From the developer's(most likely plugin developer's) view, these
changes will affect most of the web API, so some rewriting will most
likely will be needed. As the GSoC results have just been announced, I
have no clear plans for the implementation, but they will be discussed
in the mailing list. I'm sure we will come up with a solution that is
both effective and easy to implement plugins' interfaces for.

Greetings, sashee

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:

 Hi folks,

 I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
 would like to state my opinion on that:

 We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
 use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
 use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.

 I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and they all
 said Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web interface, most file
 sharing applications do not have such a powerful one.

 The current web interface just needs a few usability improvements and maybe
 a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now would IMHO be a major
 waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They should first
 concentrate on getting the core features of Freenet rock solid, fixing bugs,
 etc. As soon as we cannot think of any core stuff which has to be done
 anymore we can write a new web interface but for now this would be a major
 waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF USERS if we do not release a stable
 0.8 soon.

 To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have already filed  10
 bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. I'm trying to find
 every little piece which is confusing, every word which is not well chosen
 and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to work on the web
 interface, go to the usability category on bugs.freenetproject.org

 Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and improved
 some of the english ones, and here is my idea how to improve the UI user
 experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should have that idea on his mind:

 https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030

 Greetings, xor

 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[xor]

 

 -Original Message-
 From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org 
 [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of sashee
 Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:25 PM
 To: Discussion of development issues
 Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
 
 Hi xor!
 
 As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web 
 interface this summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
 My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and 
 make it different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily 
 means introducing server pushing, and it just means, that the 
 pages are updated automatically, without the need of 
 reloading. My favorite example for this is Gmail: you keep it 
 open, and you see the new mails. I think it too, that the 
 current layout is usable, and have no intentions to change 
 it(and btw, I'm a programmer and not a designer).
 Because of the above, the users won't experience redesign, 
 change of layout, or usability decreases.

Sounds great.
Could you have a look at the usuability issues which I have filed in the bug
tracker and decide whether you could fix them first, in trunk, so we can
have them released with 0.8? 0.8 will have to be released before GSoC is
finished.

 
 From the developer's(most likely plugin developer's) view, these
 changes will affect most of the web API, so some rewriting 
 will most likely will be needed. As the GSoC results have 
 just been announced, I have no clear plans for the 
 implementation, but they will be discussed in the mailing 
 list. I'm sure we will come up with a solution that is both 
 effective and easy to implement plugins' interfaces for.
 
 Greetings, sashee

That is okay. However, you should consider working on your own branch in SVN
and not in trunk because we need to get trunk finished and stable to be able
to release 0.8. Is that okay?

Your dynamic javascript stuff could also help me with Freetalk, dynmic
notifications upon message retrieval, etc.

Greetings, xor

 
 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
 
  Hi folks,
 
  I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web 
 interface 
  and I would like to state my opinion on that:
 
  We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web 
 interface is easy 
  to use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write 
  plugins which use it - I've worked with it for WoT and 
 Freetalk and it was fun.
 
  I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and 
  they all said Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web 
  interface, most file sharing applications do not have such 
 a powerful one.
 
  The current web interface just needs a few usability 
 improvements and 
  maybe a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now 
 would IMHO 
  be a major waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They 
  should first concentrate on getting the core features of 
 Freenet rock 
  solid, fixing bugs, etc. As soon as we cannot think of any 
 core stuff 
  which has to be done anymore we can write a new web 
 interface but for 
  now this would be a major waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF 
  USERS if we do not release a stable
  0.8 soon.
 
  To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have 
 already filed  
  10 bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. 
 I'm trying 
  to find every little piece which is confusing, every word 
 which is not 
  well chosen and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to 
  work on the web interface, go to the usability category on 
  bugs.freenetproject.org
 
  Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and 
  improved some of the english ones, and here is my idea how 
 to improve 
  the UI user experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should 
 have that idea on his mind:
 
  https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030
 
  Greetings, xor
 
  ___
  Devl mailing list
  Devl@freenetproject.org
  http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
 
 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[sashee]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:33 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:


 -Original Message-
 From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
 [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of sashee
 Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 1:25 PM
 To: Discussion of development issues
 Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

 Hi xor!

 As I'm the GSoC student who will be working on the web
 interface this summer, I feel I'm the one to respond.
 My proposal is not on plain rewriting the current GUI, and
 make it different, but to make it more dynamic. It primarily
 means introducing server pushing, and it just means, that the
 pages are updated automatically, without the need of
 reloading. My favorite example for this is Gmail: you keep it
 open, and you see the new mails. I think it too, that the
 current layout is usable, and have no intentions to change
 it(and btw, I'm a programmer and not a designer).
 Because of the above, the users won't experience redesign,
 change of layout, or usability decreases.

 Sounds great.
 Could you have a look at the usuability issues which I have filed in the bug
 tracker and decide whether you could fix them first, in trunk, so we can
 have them released with 0.8? 0.8 will have to be released before GSoC is
 finished.

I'll fix some issues in the following weeks, till the gsoc coding
starts. But as I'm a student, I'm kinda busy with my studies.



 From the developer's(most likely plugin developer's) view, these
 changes will affect most of the web API, so some rewriting
 will most likely will be needed. As the GSoC results have
 just been announced, I have no clear plans for the
 implementation, but they will be discussed in the mailing
 list. I'm sure we will come up with a solution that is both
 effective and easy to implement plugins' interfaces for.

 Greetings, sashee

 That is okay. However, you should consider working on your own branch in SVN
 and not in trunk because we need to get trunk finished and stable to be able
 to release 0.8. Is that okay?

 Your dynamic javascript stuff could also help me with Freetalk, dynmic
 notifications upon message retrieval, etc.

Branching is fine.
I'm sure these dynamics will do a good job in many places:)

sashee


 Greetings, xor


 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:05 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
 
  Hi folks,
 
  I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web
 interface
  and I would like to state my opinion on that:
 
  We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web
 interface is easy
  to use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write
  plugins which use it - I've worked with it for WoT and
 Freetalk and it was fun.
 
  I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and
  they all said Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web
  interface, most file sharing applications do not have such
 a powerful one.
 
  The current web interface just needs a few usability
 improvements and
  maybe a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now
 would IMHO
  be a major waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They
  should first concentrate on getting the core features of
 Freenet rock
  solid, fixing bugs, etc. As soon as we cannot think of any
 core stuff
  which has to be done anymore we can write a new web
 interface but for
  now this would be a major waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF
  USERS if we do not release a stable
  0.8 soon.
 
  To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have
 already filed 
  10 bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy.
 I'm trying
  to find every little piece which is confusing, every word
 which is not
  well chosen and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to
  work on the web interface, go to the usability category on
  bugs.freenetproject.org
 
  Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and
  improved some of the english ones, and here is my idea how
 to improve
  the UI user experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should
 have that idea on his mind:
 
  https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030
 
  Greetings, xor
 
  ___
  Devl mailing list
  Devl@freenetproject.org
  http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
 
 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

 ___
 Devl mailing list
 Devl@freenetproject.org
 http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Wednesday 22 April 2009 12:05:51 xor wrote:
 
 Hi folks,
 
 I have followed all the discussions about writing a new web interface and I
 would like to state my opinion on that:
 
 We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
 use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
 use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
 
 I also installed Freenet to some newbies which are a bit geeky and they all
 said Wow it's impressive what you can do with the web interface, most file
 sharing applications do not have such a powerful one.
 
 The current web interface just needs a few usability improvements and maybe
 a little scripting IMHO. Writing a new one right now would IMHO be a major
 waste of time if our core developers had to do it. They should first
 concentrate on getting the core features of Freenet rock solid, fixing bugs,
 etc. As soon as we cannot think of any core stuff which has to be done
 anymore we can write a new web interface but for now this would be a major
 waste of time because we will RUN OUT OF USERS if we do not release a stable
 0.8 soon.
 
 To help with the improvement of the current UI, I have already filed  10
 bugs in the useability category, all regarding fproxy. I'm trying to find
 every little piece which is confusing, every word which is not well chosen
 and everything which is missing. So if anyone wants to work on the web
 interface, go to the usability category on bugs.freenetproject.org
 
 Further, I have translated some of the missing german strings and improved
 some of the english ones, and here is my idea how to improve the UI user
 experience as a genral, IMHO everyone should have that idea on his mind: 
 
 https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=3030

There is also a bug called UI changes which links to lots of minor graphical 
changes.
 
 Greetings, xor


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:

 We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
 use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
 use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.


I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical.  I'd recomend getting some
non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out
anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense.  I'd like to think
that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-)

We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the
terminology used, but newbies aren't.  A term that makes perfect sense to
us, such as Matthew's use of the term node in the progress page, is likely
to confuse newbies.

I think to create a good UI, we need to mistrust our personal perceptions of
what makes sense, because, frankly, we aren't our target audience.  I'd
encourage everyone to find newbies whenever possible, and watch them install
and try to use Freenet, reporting any issues they run into to this list, or
as bugs.  Get them to give you a narrative of what they see (not sure what
that button does or hmm, not sure what I'm supposed to do now), and
report it.  Anything you need to explain to them is a *bug*, because most of
our future users won't have you sitting there to explain it.

I'd prefer to avoid a ground-up redesign of the UI too, but for anyone that
wants to work on the UI, please grab a friend or relative unfamiliar with
Freenet, and watch them trying to install or use it.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Ian Clarke]

On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 1:17 PM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:

  Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because
 client is the common word.


Is it?  When I talk to non-techies about a client they think I'm referring
to the person that employs a lawyer.  I think the least confusing term to
use in this context may be software.


 I also think that some words should be replaced. I did that for a few
 things in my last few commits. Further, for example I suggested to replace
 Key with Download link on the downloads  uploads page.


Yes, or perhaps just link.

Ian.

-- 
Ian Clarke
CEO, Uprizer Labs
Email: i...@uprizer.com
Ph: +1 512 422 3588
Fax: +1 512 276 6674
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability

[Matthew Toseland]

On Wednesday 22 April 2009 21:17:16 xor wrote:
 
   _  
 
 From: devl-boun...@freenetproject.org
 [mailto:devl-boun...@freenetproject.org] On Behalf Of Ian Clarke
 Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 7:58 PM
 To: Discussion of development issues
 Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] Our current web interface and its usability
 
 
 On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 4:05 AM, xor x...@gmx.li wrote:
 
 
 We DO NOT need a new web interface. Our current web interface is easy to
 use, works well, is sufficient, and it is also easy to write plugins which
 use it - I've worked with it for WoT and Freetalk and it was fun.
 
 
 
 I hope this is true, but I'm skeptical.  I'd recomend getting some
 non-techies to try Freenet, without guidance from you, and to point out
 anything in the web interface that doesn't make sense.  I'd like to think
 that they won't find anything to point to, but I doubt it :-)
  
 
 The persons I've showed it to sit at their PC very much but are not experts.
 I'd call them power users, they are familiar with eMule etc. and do not
 like wasting much time on configuring complex stuff. They were impressed by
 the clear layout of the web interface and thought it was a good
 representation of a p2p program. 

This is also what esr said. But again he is hardly a non-geek!
  
 Anyway I've tried my best to point out anything which is difficult to use in
 my bug reports.
  
 
 
 
 We're all steeped in a pretty good understanding of Freenet, and the
 terminology used, but newbies aren't.  A term that makes perfect sense to
 us, such as Matthew's use of the term node in the progress page, is likely
 to confuse newbies. 
  
 
 Node should really be replaced with Client *everywhere* because client
 is the common word.

Client is what connects to a node, no?


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
___
Devl mailing list
Devl@freenetproject.org
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl