[arachne] Re: User-friendliness or lack thereof in Arachne

Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!

Udo ...

Tell me something, please, because you have me very curious.

Why did you switch from a Windows browser to a DOS one?

It would seem that there must have been *some* special reason, since you obviously prefer what Netscape will do for you.

Arachne is designed for people who know, and/or are willing to learn, DOS and taking responsibility for what one does on a computer.

I was unaware that Arachne would overwrite an existing file of the same name; I thought that the DOS requirement to answer "Overwrite Existing File y/n?" either made overwriting impossible because the message wasn't passed through Arachne, or that the message *was* passed through. I know that this was a long topic of discussion a few years back, so to see you suddenly complain about that was a surprise.

As to where you want to save a file, or what you want to call it, that's hardly difficult. In fact, it is easier to type in than to play the click click click mouse game to get to where you want to go. But then, of course, that is strictly IMNSHO.

Please don't forget to tell us, please: Why did you drop windows and opt for DOS?

l.d.
====

Udo Kuhnt wrote: 
Arachne at FreeLists---The Arachne Fan Club!


An artificial limit does not offer the user a chance to remedy the
situation himself by freeing up additional memory, so it is the most
user-unfriendly and thus the worst solution I can think of.



I find it almost too humorous for words that someone thinks
that Arachne is failing in the "user friendly" arena.



Hi,

even though that statement of mine was related to the introduction of
the artificial limit of 2000 displayed emails, which hopefully will now
be obsolete, IMNSHO Arachne is still lacking in the user-friendliness
department.

For example, the download file requester leaves much to wish for. In the
Netscape Navigator I have been using before I switched to Arachne, one
would be asked for the file name even before the actual download
started. NN would also show all files in the directory, let the user
switch to another directory if needed and even ask him for confirmation
if the filename already exists.
Arachne, on the other hand, only knows one download directory, requires
the user to type the path if he wants to store the file in a different
location, does not inform the user about existing files and will even
happily overwrite a file if he accidentally chooses the wrong name.

The NN can also download several files at once, thereby making optimal
use of the free bandwidth, while still allowing the user to continue
browsing. Arachne limits the user to one download at a time and even
requires him to wait for the download to finish until he can continue
browsing.

Several years ago, I asked Michael Polak to do something about these
problems. I told him that I could rather do without Javascript or SSL
than without a good file requester. Naturally, when the subject changed
to things that Arachne does *not* support, he did not respond. :-/

Well, it is easy to say that Arachne is better than Netscape or Internet
Explorer if your Windows is just a few key presses away.
I would suggest that all the people on this list who would like to tell
me how user-friendly Arachne is and how bad Windows is to just try to do
without their Windows for a month, or perhaps only a week; then they
would probably realise how much Arachne is lacking.

Now that I have said what I think, go on and flame me for criticising
Arachne if you like. ;-)

Regards,

Udo

-- The DR-DOS/OpenDOS Enhancement Project - http://www.drdosprojects.de

-- This mail was written by a user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/

Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Web Browser/Suite for DOS and Linux --




Arachne at FreeLists
-- Arachne, The Web Browser/Suite for DOS and Linux --

Other related posts: