[freenet-dev] Fwd: [freenet-support] Usability testing on?Windows XP

[Florent Daignière]

* Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-06-02 15:03:37]:

> On Monday 02 June 2008 14:47, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2008-06-02 14:15:02]:
> > 
> > > Okay, what issues do we have here?
> > > 
> > > 1. The processes page takes longer than the copying files page. In fact, 
> most 
> > > of the time of the installer is occupied by the processes page.
> > > 
> > > IMHO the solution to this is to bundle everything which is essential with 
> the 
> > > base installer. Then the processes page will take much less time. Also we 
> > > won't need a separate bundle-installer, so it will be easier to use in 
> places 
> > > where the Freenet website is blocked. The downside is the installer will 
> be 
> > > significantly bigger.
> > 
> > I'm not convinced about that
> 
> Why? It won't be huge, if we don't bundle any unnecessary Huge Stuff (see 
> below). And it's not small now.

That means we will have to generate new installers on a regular basis...
I don't like that :p

> > > 2. The installer shouldn't download Thingamablog and Thaw. They are huge, 
> we 
> > > have not audited the code, and users can get them if they want them. 
> > > Debundling them would mean that as soon as we open the browser the 
> Processes 
> > > page will have completed, and the user can click Next and go on to 
> creating 
> > > icons. There seems to be a consensus on debundling, at least between Ian 
> and 
> > > Nextgens. :) I think a policy of not bundling anything we can't code 
> review 
> > > is reasonable, and clearly code reviewing Thingamablog for example would 
> be a 
> > > massive undertaking and isn't appropriate at this time. I do think we 
> should 
> > > keep the current plugins, however most of them are small. Even if we 
> include 
> > > the WoT plugin, that is also likely to be reasonably small for the 
> > > foreseeable future.
> > 
> > Ok, let's get rid of them then
> 
> For reasons of code reviewability?
> 

Yep

> Further to the above, I do actually review Thingamablog commits, however I 
> haven't reviewed the original, and it's not really widely enough used that we 
> can assume it to be safe? However, I do disagree with Ian's assertion that 
> nothing we don't own is reviewable: it is much easier to hide bugs in C 
> because you have buffer overflows, format string vulnerabilities and so on. 
> In Java, well written code *can* be reviewed, although of course more subtle 
> bugs may slip through the net. Also I review jSite commits (I dunno whether 
> the original on which the diffs are applied was reviewed though).
> > 
> > > 3. Is it possible to change the names of the two panels? Copying Files vs 
> > > Setting Up Freenet, perhaps?
> > 
> > We could get rid of one of the panel before the processing one
> 
> Good idea.

Will see what I can do

> > 
> > > 4. Is it possible to open the browser after closing the installer rather 
> than 
> > > in the Processes page?
> > 
> > Not "cleanly" but we could do a workaround time-delaying the browser
> > startup.
> 
> I'm not convinced that's better than the alternative.

Okay, so WONTFIX
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080602/8b9041c3/attachment.pgp