Hi,
[..snip explanations..]
> anonym: more browsers with specific purposes => more things for the user
> to keep in their heads w.r.t. browsing, which is something they probably
> would expect to only have *one* browser for. I don't think these
> separations we make are intuitive unless you have some pretty deep
> knowledge about Tor, networks and the threats model we have here.
>
> intrigeri: I agree. OTOH, once you already have educated users to pick
> among two browsers, going to 3 isn't that much a big deal, perhaps.
>
> I can see a small tendency towards combining Unsafe and LAN. So, shall
> we try to find UX arguments in favor of separating them maybe? Then we
> can count points :)
Summary: I agree with anonym.
I would find it very complicated to open a browser for each type of
traffic, because this requires the user to understand the different
kinds of traffic.
The case of the I2P browser is a specific one: this browser targets a
very particular subset of users: those who use Tails with I2P. These
users might eventually even be considered as power users, as using I2P -
at least it seems like that to me - is already something very specific
which people need to read up on before using it at all.
That is why I believe that I2P users are able to understand why there is
a second browser for their particular use case.
For the normal user a 3rd browser might be very confusing and I'd rather
see the combination of Unsafe and LAN happen.
Cheers.
u.
