[Freedombox-discuss] Initial User Experience (was: Tor .onion domains)
dr at jones.dk
Mon May 9 19:18:42 UTC 2011
On 11-05-09 at 08:23pm, Michael Blizek wrote:
> On 19:49 Mon 09 May , Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > - or none if the user wants to be invisible.
> > If the user wants to be invisible then the user will avoid [c], and
> > possibly [b] as well.
> > > It is not having a domain which is dangerous. But having a dyndns name
> > > which links your name with your IP address is. The user may think he
> > > is at least somewhat anonymous due to a dynamic IP.
> > I wrote "name" (not "dns"). A relationship *must* be established
> > between the box and you(r laptop or cellphone or whatever). I propose
> > as user expecience for that to baptize the box.
> It makes a bit more sense now. However, I still do not not see what
> the user would have to do, if he does not want to connect to the box
> from outside the LAN. He could connect to e.g. 192.168.1.171 (as
> written in the handbook - he has to do this the first time anyway).
> Why does the user have to enter a name in this case?
> The next question is then how should the name look? Should it resolve
> to an IP? Then we have the same problem as with DNS. This name would
> have to be e.g. an .onion address to be safe. But I guess this is not
> what you had in mind...
I deliberately do not "have in mind" at all.
You want .onion. Fine - I don't care (for this discussion)!
Can we now please get back to talking user experience design?
You envision a handbook that instructs the user to type in a specific IP
number, which somehow ensures it is the correct box?
> > I deliberately avoid the underlying technical details (tying a name
> > to a cryptography token) as I want to discuss User Experience here,
> > not technical implementation. Think "WebID" everywhere I write
> > "name" if you really really must have a concrete example, but please
> > stick to general principles, not specific implementations, in this
> > discussion: Some followers on this list are UX designers, that are
> > helped if such discussions are uncluttered from noisy details about
> > other aspects.
> The problem with this is that the "noisy details" can make big
How does it affect user experience if the nickname of the box resolves
of an .onion vs. an ip number?!?
> I do *not* want FB to get it the way if a user wants to publish
> something. But I also do not want it to promote things which can be
> dangerous without warning - or even do them silently. This is a fine
So we perfectly agree?
> > > You could ask the user questions like:
> > > [ ] I want to stay in contact with friends
> > > [ ] I want to publish
> > > [ ] ...
> > Yes. Looks quite close to what I proposed.
> The difference between first asking for a name and then asking what
> the user wants to do and the other way round looks pretty big to me.
How is that a big difference, when it is *not* a dns name but a nickname
we are talking about?!?
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
[x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
More information about the Freedombox-discuss