Oops, I didn't meant to answer this in private. Answering back to the
list...
Giorgio Maone:
> On 07/05/2015 18:12, sajolida wrote:
>> Hi Giorgio,
>>
>> A few days ago we finished a wireframe of the extension that we believe
>> is a good start for you to work on. It might still change slightly as we
>> continue discussing small details of it.
>>
>> See
>> https://labs.riseup.net/code/attachments/download/759/extension-20150430.fodg.
> Looks great, thank you!
I'm glad you like it.
>> We also updated the blueprint with some more implementation information.
>>
>> https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/bootstrapping/extension/
>>
>> See the sections:
>>
>> - Non goals
>> - User scenario and wireframe
>> - Integration in the web assistant
>> - Initial browser detection
>> - Checksum verification
>> - Data source
> Regarding "initial browser detection", I can also provide the JavaScript
> for browser sniffing and browser-specific web content provision if needed.
Yes, that's what we had in mind :)
So I'll try to specify that a bit better once we have a prototype of the
page to work on.
>> Does all this sounds reasonable to you?
>
> Yes it does.
Cool!
>> I think that what we need to work on together now is to specify which
>> HTML tools (div, class, etc.) you will need in the code of those web
>> pages to be able to do your stuff. Then tchou and I will start writing
>> the HTML code for those pages.
>
> I'd actually feel more comfortable with you providing the HTML written
> the way you prefer best from a web authoring standpoint, and me
> developing my interaction code around the structure you come up with,
> bending it to my needs only if really necessary (e.g. by adding a
> missing id or class attribute)
Ok, so our next step is to work on a prototype of the page.
>> Before you can start coding for real we'll also need a name for the
>> extension. We'll try to sort this out quickly, see #9295. Feel free to
>> comment on the latest proposals.
>
> I cast my vote for "Download and Verify Tails": unambiguous and
> future-proof, in case should the verification process change.
Yeah, everybody likes this one.
>> We also want to ask you whether you think we should have some written
>> contract for your work with the specifications, deadlines, conditions,
>> and so on. We don't usually do that when we work amongst ourselves but
>> if you require one we can maybe get something.
>
> Informal email exchanges like this and the ones you initially contacted
> me with will work just fine, thank you.
Ok.
>> Otherwise, at least regarding the deadlines we'll have to deliver the
>> web assistant to Hivos by the end of the year but we'll do several
>> iterations before that and it would be great to have something on which
>> we can do user testing let's say before July. Does that sound reasonable
>> to you?
>
> I'm currently very busy with the Firefox transition to the Electrolysis
> multi-process architecture (enhancing security through low-privilege
> content sandboxing), and specifically with adapting NoScript to it and
> helping developers of other popular and complex add-ons who are facing
> the same challenges.
> Therefore, end of July or beginning of August is more realistic IMO,
> even though I'll do my best to prototype it ASAP.
Yeah, that will work for us too. We wanted to do some user testing at a
conference in June but we won't have all the rest perfectly ready
neither so we'll just test whatever we have.
> On the upside, you're guaranteed of being provided with an
> Electrolysis-ready add-on, rather than testing something earlier which
> only later is found to cause troubles in multi-process Firefox.
Nice. I should inform myself better about Electrolysis :)
--
sajolida
