Hey,
[Please try to keep me Cc'ed more consistently for those bits. Here it
took me quite some time to understand that I had missed one message
from sajolida, which then explained a lot of my confusion.]
Spencer wrote (13 Mar 2016 07:05:11 GMT) :
>> intrigeri:
>>>> Spencer:
>> tried to explain this on:
>> https://tails.boum.org/doc/anonymous_internet/Tor_status/
> Yes but not as explicitly as this:
>> Tor Status is the software that handles the onion icon in the system
>> tray.
>>
>> Onion Circuits is the software that [displays] Tor [network]
>> connections.
Absolutely.
I think that the end-user doc is better in the way it currently is,
i.e. it hides this implementation detail from the user. Fair enough?
> These are wonderful!
:)
>>>> • There are no details when clicking on [some] path[s]
>>>>
>>>
>>> #11195 .. using a bridge
>>>
>>
>> If you were using a bridge: can you retry without using a bridge?
>>
> No bridge.
> I think this report is based on what is expected in the details section. If a circuit
> path string is selected, the info for each node is displayed in 'Details'. However,
> if a connection status string is selected, there is no info displayed in 'Details'.
> In the case of an error in a Tor network connection where no circuit was built, the
> details of the error, whatever they may be, could be valuable for troubleshooting if
> we can keep it from disappearing.
I would love to see a design proposal here for a first iteration, that
addresses the confusion created by "there is no info displayed in
'Details'", with minimal engineering work required (so far nobody
volunteered to do any such work). Perhaps we could display some static
string, instead of nothing at all, in those cases?
>>>> • Maybe country could be the path labels, moving the router name to the details
>>>> section where country is.
>>>>
>>
>> Why?
>>
> It seems like this is a common mental model: "I am at my computer connecting to other
> computers before I get to my destination; which country should I exit from?"
> This experience is supported in a usable way by OrBot and in a less usable way by
> Tor Browser.
> Macro to micro ordering puts country of the router first, then the IP/nickname of the
> router, and so on, with other details.
> Tor Browser's Tor Circuit Visualization also does this.
Got it, thanks! At this point maybe those of us who want to iterate
further on this should start taking notes on a blueprint or something,
which could help having this discussion with interested developers
later :)
>> instead find some more [clear but equally informative] technical information
>>
> 'Circuits and Connection Details'
> 'Circuits and Connections'
> 'Tor Network Connection Details'
> 'Tor Connection Details'
> 'Tor Connections'
> 'Monitor Tor Network Status'
> 'Manage Tor Status'
> 'Connections & Crap'
> 'Tor Stuff'
> Or others...
> Maybe the title 'Onion Circuits' makes the need to use 'circuit' in the
> subtitle redundant.
> Maybe 'circuits' presumes 'streams', since many have a mental model of computer
> networking, though many don't.
To be clear, there is a proposal to mask the technical "Tor stream"
concept behind the "Tor connection" term, in our communication with
users, right?
Regardless of the exact wording ("Tor connection" makes me think of my
connection to the Tor network, more than my connection through the Tor
network to some online resource, but I know I'm not the target
audience): do we think we can do that in Onion Circuits only, or
shall it be coordinated with other aspects of the way the Tor
development community communicates with users (see
e.g. how "hidden services" became "onion sites"), in order to avoid
confusion caused by the co-existence of multiple wordings for the same
concept? (I won't debate this myself, I just want to make sure you
folks have this in mind while discussing this topic :)
Cheers,
--
intrigeri
