PasswordMaker Forums
Miscellaneous => Other => Topic started by: Tyrantmizar on September 30, 2005, 12:04:13 AM
-
The only bad reviews you've gotten over at Moz Update (here (https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&id=469)) have been from nutcases (I'm looking at you Ryan!!, though Jack wasn't very coherent) Is there any kind of penalties for posting pratical lies like they did or are they within the limits?
Also, most of the 'bad' reviews have been for features/bugs that have been fixed! what the heck?
-
I actually reported those comments to see if something would be done, thus far - nothing.
-
Thanks for checking this out, Tyrantmizar.
Is there any kind of penalties for posting pratical lies like they did or are they within the limits?
As far as I know, the only thing we can do is click the "Report Comment" link :(
Also, most of the 'bad' reviews have been for features/bugs that have been fixed! what the heck?
Yeah, it would be real nice if they made it clear to which version a review applies. They do have the dates next to each review, but that's hardly adequate. The guys at UMO (that's the acronym for their old site--updates.mozilla.org, which is now addons.mozilla.org -- but is still their name for some reason) are notoriously difficult to reach. The best way to reach them is on their IRC channel (http://irc://irc.mozilla.org/umo).
You should also feel free to submit new reviews periodically when the extension has changed significantly since the last time you reviewed it.
-
As for the bad comments, I was a user of weatherfox for quite a while, but then weather.com came out with their extension, which I actually like a lot better. You should have seen the comment section there. The guys from weatherfox slammed this new extension, which came a bit later.
So, I wouldn't worry about the bad comments too much. I am just sorry for the people who decide not to use PM because of these rotten comments.
-
Speaking of Moz Update, I've always been wondering about why this doesn't have the cult following and popularity of, say, Greasemonkey or Adblock. Yes, I truly believe that PasswordMaker deserves to be in the same class as those extensions. PM is truly an awesome extension. Anyway, I've been thinking about it for a while, and have come up with several contributing factors:
1)Moz Update is slow. As slow as crap is on a winter day. They still have 0.8.1 up and you're on 0.8.7
2)Cheap, made-in-two-seconds knockoffs. Not to be terribly condescending to the other password hashing extensions (too late), but none of them really rival PasswordMaker. What they do have is a space on the ever expanding Privacy and Security category (https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/showlist.php?application=firefox&category=Privacy%20and%20Security) of Mozilla update. They confuse Firefox users, and they don't have a clear-cut comparison of the various password-hashing extensions out there.
3)Complexity I would like to note that I don't mean that PasswordMaker is bloated. It is simply chock-full of features (and looking to get bigger and bigger as time goes on.) Trust me. I run the FRL. I probably am more aware of this simple fact than anyone except Eric. The sheer number of advanced settings, (and, frankly, the uselessness of the Basic Options) make it rather user-unfriendly.
The help files and these forums help. A lot. But it isn't enough. When I go to passwordmaker.org, I'm immediately confronted with a long explanation of what PasswordMaker does. Even though it has gotten better, it is still a bit winded. We need to shorten it. We need to make it less complex and more user-friendly.
Currently PM appeals to security nuts and computer geeks. We need to get the average Firefox/Mozilla user into the picture. Someone who has no clue that "password" does not make a good password, or that saving it to your computer using password managers isn't as secure as it could be, is not going to understand what PM is about.
4)Cruddy explanation on Moz Update. lets face it. It isn't Shakespeare. Especially on the actual page (https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?application=firefox&id=469) it is one big blob of text. Yes, I know that isn't your fault. It still sucks.
5)*@#%&! like Ryan nuff said
6)long winded pointless angry rants on my part hehe sry! :angel:
PS What is up with PixieGirl (http://www.pixelgirlstudios.com/)? her site doesn't work and you've got a pointless link on your front page.
PPS I can't promise anything, but I will try not to have these types of spontaneous angry and bitter rants again. Again, I'm sorry. No feelings were intended to be hurt.
PPPS ...and yet, I hope I gave you guys something to think on. But for now, night all!
-
Wow. Lots of comments will follow after I stew on this. Most excellent suggestions. Thank you. Come back soon.
-
Tyrant on a tirade! Well, at least yours contains lots of useful information and suggestions... ;)
Seriously, I agree with everything... but would like to make clear that it is the *feature-set* of PM that is the only reason I - and the others I have turned on to it - *choose* it. PM just rocks, and is just gonna rock harder as time goes on. I do think Eric will find ways of making the 'Advanced' settings more intuitive as time goes on, but I'm fine with the way they are now for the most part, and certainly do *not* want to see PM 'dumbed down'.
We have a great group here helping Eric answer questions from new people, and even to a certain extent, helping him decide which features make the most sense to implement, act as a sounding board for their implementation, and to help work out the occasional bugs (few, and always fixed incredibly quickly).
So, the best thing we can do is visit addons.mozilla.org and the other update sites and add our comments - especially whenever Ryan or one of the other clueless abuses their keyboard...
Charles
-
Hi,
Moz Update is slow. As slow as crap is on a winter day. They still have 0.8.1 up and you're on 0.8.7
That's very true, but in this case not entirely their fault. I've been lax in submitting every update to them. I submitted the most recent one to them (0.8.7?) but nothing before that since 0.8.1. But in any case, even after I submit an update, it takes them 2-3 weeks before they approve (or reject) it. They work strictly on a volunteer basis, and if you want to become a volunteer it's quite easy. By doing this, you can review any extension submittals you want--as many or as few as you have time for. In fact, if you want to review only PasswordMaker updates, you could do that. By "review", I mean the person who tests the extension to make sure it's not buggy, does what it says, etc. After a reviewer approves it, the update gets posted on UMO. Let me know if you want instructions on how to become a reviewer.
Cheap, made-in-two-seconds knockoffs. Not to be terribly condescending to the other password hashing extensions (too late), but none of them really rival PasswordMaker. What they do have is a space on the ever expanding Privacy and Security category of Mozilla update. They confuse Firefox users, and they don't have a clear-cut comparison of the various password-hashing extensions out there.
.
Agreed. Not sure what to do about that except keep on promoting PasswordMaker everywhere we can...
When I go to passwordmaker.org, I'm immediately confronted with a long explanation of what PasswordMaker does. Even though it has gotten better, it is still a bit winded. We need to shorten it. We need to make it less complex and more user-friendly.
Definitely agree there. I wrote that text back in January or so and it has changed very little since then. Would you please take a stab at writing the new home page? Detailed explanations can go on other pages or be hidden unless the users opens a link (just like clicking on some of the links in the navigation bar on the right of the website open/close more links)
Currently PM appeals to security nuts and computer geeks. We need to get the average Firefox/Mozilla user into the picture. Someone who has no clue that "password" does not make a good password, or that saving it to your computer using password managers isn't as secure as it could be, is not going to understand what PM is about.
I know. I know! But how? Making it simpler will help. Making the web site easier to understand will help. But I need help with that. You see what I've created and I don't know how to make it simpler. HELP ME!!!
Cruddy explanation on Moz Update. lets face it. It isn't Shakespeare. Especially on the actual page it is one big blob of text. Yes, I know that isn't your fault. It still sucks.
Once again, I could use your help here. How should it read? How should I fix it (besides the formatting issues). I could give you access to the account if you would like to play with it yourself.
*@#%&! like Ryan nuff said
This will always happen and I don't think you need worry about it because the word can still get out.
PS What is up with PixieGirl? her site doesn't work and you've got a pointless link on your front page.
Thanks for pointing this out to me. I didn't even know, and she didn't even tell me.
No feelings were intended to be hurt.
None hurt here. Thank you very much for the constructive criticism. This is precisely what PasswordMaker needs. I'd just like MORE input from you now. Can you help me write/re-write things?
Eric
-
By the way, I think having an IE extension will also attract a lot more people. I'm working on it now.
-
By the way, I think having an IE extension will also attract a lot more people. I'm working on it now.
Eric, you are correct here. If Kim Commando were to recommend PM on her show, or on her web site, there could potentially be thousands of new users.
-
Cheap, made-in-two-seconds knockoffs. Not to be terribly condescending to the other password hashing extensions (too late), but none of them really rival PasswordMaker. What they do have is a space on the ever expanding Privacy and Security category of Mozilla update. They confuse Firefox users, and they don't have a clear-cut comparison of the various password-hashing extensions out there.
.
Agreed. Not sure what to do about that except keep on promoting PasswordMaker everywhere we can...
We could make a table taking several passwordhashers (and maybe a 'standard' password manager) and compare them feature by feature with PasswordMaker. hmm...
Currently PM appeals to security nuts and computer geeks. We need to get the average Firefox/Mozilla user into the picture. Someone who has no clue that "password" does not make a good password, or that saving it to your computer using password managers isn't as secure as it could be, is not going to understand what PM is about.
I know. I know! But how? Making it simpler will help. Making the web site easier to understand will help. But I need help with that. You see what I've created and I don't know how to make it simpler. HELP ME!!!
Cruddy explanation on Moz Update. lets face it. It isn't Shakespeare. Especially on the actual page it is one big blob of text. Yes, I know that isn't your fault. It still sucks.
Once again, I could use your help here. How should it read? How should I fix it (besides the formatting issues). I could give you access to the account if you would like to play with it yourself.
Don't ask me! I am horrible at explaining anything. The best way, IMHO, to approach this is by conference, i.e. Eric, quixin, Romeo, tanstaafl, me, etc. all trying to make it easier to understand.
... but would like to make clear that it is the *feature-set* of PM that is the only reason I - and the others I have turned on to it - *choose* it. PM just rocks, and is just gonna rock harder as time goes on. I do think Eric will find ways of making the 'Advanced' settings more intuitive as time goes on, but I'm fine with the way they are now for the most part, and certainly do *not* want to see PM 'dumbed down'.
I understand, believe me. I was not suggesting that it be 'dumbed down,' merely that it would gain a better ease-of-use.
By the way, I think having an IE extension will also attract a lot more people. I'm working on it now.
Excellent. :)
-
Hi Eric,
Even though most of my Feature Requests tend to be fairly long-winded, I am actually capable of being succinct when I want to be.
If no one else beats me to it, I'll take a stab at re-writing the text on the home page (that you could also use for the description on the extensions sites) and post something this weekend to get us started working it out...
Personally, I think the first page should just be a short/sweet summary, with a 'click here for details' link to a second page for the nitty gritty...
-
By the way, I agree totally on the IE extension, and I'm curious... how far away would you say it is? Are we talking weeks or months?
Also, I'd be willing to be a reviewer for PM if Tyrant hasn't taken you up on that yet. I'm happy to help in any way I can, but purely for selfish reasons - the less you have to worry about things like this, the more time you can spend on PM itself... ;)
-
If no one else beats me to it, I'll take a stab at re-writing the text on the home page (that you could also use for the description on the extensions sites) and post something this weekend to get us started working it out...
No one else has expressed interest yet on this thread, so go for it!
By the way, I agree totally on the IE extension, and I'm curious... how far away would you say it is? Are we talking weeks or months?
A first release is about 1-2 weeks away, depending on how much free time I find. If I didn't have a full-time job, it would be days away.
Also, I'd be willing to be a reviewer for PM if Tyrant hasn't taken you up on that yet. I'm happy to help in any way I can, but purely for selfish reasons - the less you have to worry about things like this, the more time you can spend on PM itself...
Excellent. You should read this (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Update:Reviewers_Guide) and also this (from the top of addons.mozilla.org (http://addons.mozilla.org)):
Want to get involved?
We are looking for volunteers to help us with UMO. We are in need of PHP developers to help with redesigning the site, and people to review extensions and themes that get submitted to UMO. We especially need Mac and Thunderbird users. If you are interested in being a part of this exciting project, please send information such as your full name, timezone and experience to [email protected]. Also, please join us in #umo on irc.mozilla.org to start getting a feeling for what's up or for a more informal chat.
edit:
We could make a table taking several passwordhashers (and maybe a 'standard' password manager) and compare them feature by feature with PasswordMaker. hmm...
Tyrant, great idea. This comparison should go on the main passwordmaker.org site, not the forums. Would you care to take this on? I can suggest which products to compare...
-
We could make a table taking several passwordhashers (and maybe a 'standard' password manager) and compare them feature by feature with PasswordMaker. hmm...
Tyrant, great idea. This comparison should go on the main passwordmaker.org site, not the forums. Would you care to take this on? I can suggest which products to compare...
I've already started working on it. I'm creating a table in Excel, would you like it in a different format? Yes, I know you've got to convert it to html in order to put it on the website.
I'm currently comparing:Magic Password Generator, Password Composer, PasswordMaker, PwdHash, and a general password manager-probably Firefox. If you have any more suggestions, let me know!
-
Eric and Tyrant, how about the comptition, whatever they call their little no good gizmo ? Should they be added to this comparison also ?
-
Eric and Tyrant, how about the comptition, whatever they call their little no good gizmo ? Should they be added to this comparison also ?
um.. wha?
Anyway, I do need help on one main thing: what should the topics of comparison be? Should I take the strong points of each extension and see how they stack up to the others? (in which case, that would be a big list of "yes" for PM and lots of "no" for the others) Or should I try to simplify it into a few select topics? If so, please give me some ideas!
edit:what hash does Firefox use to protect your passwords?
-
Home Page Suggestion:
Using one password over and over when you need a password is not very secure. PasswordMaker can make using that one password secure.
PasswordMaker creates very strong passwords derived from one single password of your creation. This allows you to use one Master password that you can remember while using different and difficult (nearly impossible) to crack passwords for your different usernames.
___
Optional section:
An online version is available to provide the passwords when you are not at your computer.
(personally, i think this can be addressed later in the help section)
___
Skip the explanation of how it works, why you should use it, existing solutions etc.
Allow a link for the explanation of how it works but dont put that on the front page.
Taking a "...For Dummies" approach. I think it needs to be stated that you have to manually change your existing passwords to the ones PM provides someplace before the help file or early in the help file.
-
Anyway, I do need help on one main thing: what should the topics of comparison be? Should I take the strong points of each extension and see how they stack up to the others? (in which case, that would be a big list of "yes" for PM and lots of "no" for the others) Or should I try to simplify it into a few select topics? If so, please give me some ideas!
I'd take some key selling points and then compare the products....
available algorithms
supported browsers
number of ways to modify hashed password
how long it has been in existence or offered community wide
context menu/keyboard/menu use (?) - do they all integrate with the browser smoothly? do any of them require weird keyboard shortcuts? etc
other modification/options/scalability - ie, i can remove it's visible presence from the toolbar.
the last two catergories are not quite the selling points as the the first three.
-
Anyway, I do need help on one main thing: what should the topics of comparison be? Should I take the strong points of each extension and see how they stack up to the others? (in which case, that would be a big list of "yes" for PM and lots of "no" for the others) Or should I try to simplify it into a few select topics? If so, please give me some ideas!
I'd take some key selling points and then compare the products....
available algorithms
supported browsers
number of ways to modify hashed password
how long it has been in existence or offered community wide
context menu/keyboard/menu use (?) - do they all integrate with the browser smoothly? do any of them require weird keyboard shortcuts? etc
other modification/options/scalability - ie, i can remove it's visible presence from the toolbar.
the last two catergories are not quite the selling points as the the first three.
Excellent. I shall use all of these, except the 4th one (I've striked that one out). I don't really think that how well known it is should be a factor. But the rest of them are excellent selling points.
Perhaps, we should create this table, and also make a list of all the features that PasswordMaker has that the others don't.
Lastly, I ask again. Eric or Romeo, would MS Excel work for you?
-
Trephin: Thanks very much on the website input. Let's see what tanstaafly comes up with and we'll combine your ideas. But you're right -- the home page should be short and sweet.
Tyrantmizar: if you don't know HTML, then Excel is fine. If you do know HTML, then just place it in a <table/> tag. That would save us a little work. btw, quixin works on the website, too, it's not just me and romeo.
I think one more feature request to compare is: do they support multiple accounts? I've noticed a number of these "hasher" programs that can produce only one password per URL!
Other programs to add to the comparison list: KeyPass--a lot of people tend to mention this--RoboForm (there's a FF plugin I tried a few weeks back).
edit:what hash does Firefox use to protect your passwords?
Like KeyPass and RoboForm, FF doesn't hash passwords. It uses two-way (symmetric) encryption. That's why you are able to choose any passwords you like with these products (Hashing is not encryption). Take a look at this (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/psm/help_21/using_priv_help.html#using_encrypt) and this (http://www.mozilla.org/projects/security/pki/psm/help_21/glossary.html#software_security_device). The documents are dated, but the underlying technology is still the same. An important point to note is all these products store the master password on your hard drive (including FF Password Manager). FWIW, I think FF uses AES encryption but I don't know which bit length--128 or 256. Let me know if you'd like me to ask around to find out.
-
I've noticed a number of these "hasher" programs that can produce only one password per URL!
I haven't noticed any that support accounts.
I'll look into KeyPass and Roboform. That might take a while though.
I decided not to review Magic Password Generator. I can't get it to work consistently.
btw, quixin works on the website, too, it's not just me and romeo.
oops :whistle: sry.
-
Its been a long day. :sleep: I'll add KeyPass and Roboform tomorrow (maybe Monday).
For now, here is a base to work off of.
I would do it in HTML, but I suck at tables. Never understood them. (http://www.geocities.com/tyrantmizar/passwordmakercompare0-1.xlslink[/URL)
-
Excellent. I shall use all of these, except the 4th one (I've striked that one out). I don't really think that how well known it is should be a factor. But the rest of them are excellent selling points.
I agree that it shouldn't, but I think the one point I was trying to consider is that as an open source program that has been in existence for a little while, as a nonprogrammer, you would think that if anything suspicious was involved, it would be brought to light by someone by now and the fact that there is active development with an active community. I do agree that it's not really a selling point but I think it is still a positive even if not well defined.
In regards to the draft, I would include the product version/number next to the product name instead of a separate row.
Also, I would think we should be more formal and less colloquial
more as a guideline than specific instance, but instead of highlighting a competitor's negative, we highlight PM's positive
ie, instead of firefox password mgr saving password to disk, we say, "PM generates passwords on the fly without leaving passwords on disk"
last, i'm not knowledge in cryptography, and the issue of practicality comes into play, but is "uncrackable" an absolute certainty? i mention this more for being precise in language than a practical exercise
-
oops... didnt log in...
anyway, just wanted to add that while i thought the power point comment was on the mark, for public release, i think it serves to only bring PM down.... not that you should remove the line, but again, less colloquial, more formal
-
Tyrant, I'll convert the excel spreadsheet over to HTML as soon as its complete.
-
Excellent. I shall use all of these, except the 4th one (I've striked that one out). I don't really think that how well known it is should be a factor. But the rest of them are excellent selling points.
I agree that it shouldn't, but I think the one point I was trying to consider is that as an open source program that has been in existence for a little while, as a nonprogrammer, you would think that if anything suspicious was involved, it would be brought to light by someone by now and the fact that there is active development with an active community. I do agree that it's not really a selling point but I think it is still a positive even if not well defined.
In regards to the draft, I would include the product version/number next to the product name instead of a separate row.
Also, I would think we should be more formal and less colloquial
more as a guideline than specific instance, but instead of highlighting a competitor's negative, we highlight PM's positive
ie, instead of firefox password mgr saving password to disk, we say, "PM generates passwords on the fly without leaving passwords on disk"
last, i'm not knowledge in cryptography, and the issue of practicality comes into play, but is "uncrackable" an absolute certainty? i mention this more for being precise in language than a practical exercise
I agree that it shouldn't, but I think the one point I was trying to consider is that as an open source program that has been in existence for a little while, as a nonprogrammer, you would think that if anything suspicious was involved, it would be brought to light by someone by now and the fact that there is active development with an active community. I do agree that it's not really a selling point but I think it is still a positive even if not well defined.
I most definitely agree with this, but I don't think people without a lot of open-source exposure really care. FWIW, at my "day job" I very carefully compare all open-source libraries before I make use of them and weight the factors you describe above heavily. Activity, popularity, and community are extremely important: you might choose the best product (or library, as is the case for developers like me) for your needs, but if no one else is using it, you're going to find yourself in trouble down somewhere down the line.
Perhaps one measure of this might be number of downloads on UMO? Note also that PasswordMaker is listed on download.com, which also has a download count, but I don't update releases on there frequently...
-
All of these point about the popularity / open source code are very valid. No offense, before I started using / falling in love with PM, I poked around in the forums for quite a while and tried to find all the information I could to assure that this program was cosher and not going to steal my passwords. So, I do agree that this point should be included. May be not in the current form, but I am sure that we could find an effective way to make this point say what we need it to say.
edit: number of downloads on UMO
Would that include the downloads from this site ? Do we even have an accurate count for downloads from this site ?
-
Would that include the downloads from this site ? Do we even have an accurate count for downloads from this site ?
Yes, I have that info if we want to include it.
-
How about the number of registered users in this forum? Or the number of daily posts (registered users vs unregistered)?
I agree that many people don't care about the FLOSS aspect, but, many do, and these shouldn't be ignored. We should simply state that PM is licensed under the LGPL - people who know and understand about FLOSS licenses will immediately understand the significance - others can click on the (hyperlinked) words to go to a page describing the license and its advantages - some of those people who you might think don't *care*, simply may not *know*, and might be willing to learn, so we should give them that opportunity.
-
Ok, updating the Home Page sounded like it would be relatively easy, but my perfectionism got in the way again...
I'm still working on it, but trying to resolve/integrate duplication of text between the Home Page and the (most excellent) Help Files. Also, a little reorganizing of the Help Files, and correcting a few typos (I'm an excellent proof-reader for docs, etc, and I'm happy to do so for anything PM related).
Anyway, this is gonna take me a little longer than I thought, but I am working on it.
-
I would suggest that you try to keep the homepage as simple as possible... the goal being to invite / entice new users... people can delve deeper for more information following links... i would not worry about duplicating information as long as it is appropriate for the homepage.
if you are tackling editing the help files, please do check for more than typos/misspellings.... checking for grammar and clarity would be excellent... i certainly can appreciate the size of the task and commend you for taking it on
-
Ok, first draft, but I am ashamed to admit that my HTML skills are - well, to be blunt, they suck eggs. I have no idea how to do the columns and the Menu/Links Tree, so I ended up just doing a mock-up of the web pages in OpenOffice to make it easier for me to see what it would look like.
Below are links to 4 jpegs, representing the 4 new/different pages. The quality sucks, but I have the original in OpenDocument format, .doc format (don't know how well the OpenOffice doc will translate), or PDF if anyone cannot read the jpegs.
I borrowed heavily for the new pages from the existing pages and the Help Files. Also, I added the 'Current Version' and the link to the Support Forums up in the PM Logo, because there was no place to readily see the current version, and the Support Forums link didn't really belong in the Menu/Tree since the Forums pages do not include the Menu/Tree. This was just added as a suggestion...
I look forward to being told that my writing and graphic skills are less than adequate and I can go home now... :lol:
1. Home (Intro) Page (http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/7987/pmhomepage11tn.jpg)
2. How It Works Page (more complex description) (http://img293.imageshack.us/img293/2148/pmhomepage22vk.jpg)
3. Comparison Page (for the chart Tyrant and quixin are working on) (http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/3985/pmhomepage39gp.jpg)
4. Portability Page (http://img35.imageshack.us/img35/4772/pmhomepage49bz.jpg)
I apologize for being so presumptious as to redesign the entire site, but having the Menu/Tree on the right side always bothered me - it is not standard for a web site, and I really think we should try to keep things as simple as possible. If all you want to do is change the text, I assure you, my feelings will not be hurt...
Also, there is plenty of room, so I am showing the Trees expanded all the time - just an idea I like...
-
Excellent Draft! The tree is nicely designed.
Page 1
2P (paragraph since I'm not hunting for the paragraph symbol): maybe have link to "risky" explaining why using the same password is risky using the previous homepage information
3P: Perhaps Eric should come up with a name for PM... system? souds overly complex. but the extensions/widget/online and future iterations are just different forms of the same thing. Unless the broweser extension is the primary device.... then I would say "...is AN....extension... )." Next sentence, say "It is also available as Kon Widget and an online version." "an" is just capitalized to emphasize that it's "an" and not "a"
__
Page 4
Maybe Eric should setup a roadmap page... but I digress... the page is fine but I might skip the rest of the 3P from "No Aspect...." and following. 4P copuld then be added to 3P
___
I think Wallpaper and and maybe the source code should be moved to another grouping in the tree. maybe leave the source code with the widget and extension under an install tree option
The other pages were fine at first glance. i'll look at everything again later.
good job!
-
Excellent Draft! The tree is nicely designed.
Thanks - although really all I did was move it to the left side and expand all of the sub-links by default.
maybe have link to "risky" explaining why using the same password is risky using the previous homepage information
Yeah, I saw a lot of places for links like that, but figured they would get done in the review/coding stage (as you are doing now ;)...
3P: Perhaps Eric should come up with a name for PM... system? souds overly complex. but the extensions/widget/online and future iterations are just different forms of the same thing.
True - and after I uploaded the jpegs I though that maybe I should try to reword that part - make it clear that all of the different tools will share the same Settings, so no matter which form of the tool (or system, to use your word) you use, your settings are right there.
Unless the broweser extension is the primary device.... then I would say "...is AN....extension... )." Next sentence, say "It is also available as Kon Widget and an online version." "an" is just capitalized to emphasize that it's "an" and not "a"
The Browser extension is definitely *my* primary device, but I'm not so sure for others - I'd be interested in hearing opinions on this...
Page 4-Maybe Eric should setup a roadmap page...
Definitely thought of that, but wanted to get the first draft out there. It should be a separate section (not under the 'About' menu tree) imo...
but I digress... the page is fine but I might skip the rest of the 3P from "No Aspect...." and following. 4P copuld then be added to 3P
Yes, once I separate out the 'Roadmap' stuff from the descriptive texts, I'll do this.
I think Wallpaper and and maybe the source code should be moved to another grouping in the tree. maybe leave the source code with the widget and extension under an install tree option
Not sure what yoiu mean here - they are all 'Downloadables'... are you saying there should be an 'Install' section and a 'Other downloads' section? I think that is unnecessarily complicating things, myself...
The other pages were fine at first glance. i'll look at everything again later.
good job!
Thanks :)
-
1st revisions done:
1. Home (Intro) Page (http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/338/pmhomepage16kr.jpg)
2. No change
3. No change
4. Portability Page (http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9859/pmhomepage45ke.jpg)
5. RoadMap (http://img107.imageshack.us/img107/9061/pmhomepage55uj.jpg)
-
Not sure what yoiu mean here - they are all 'Downloadables'... are you saying there should be an 'Install' section and a 'Other downloads' section? I think that is unnecessarily complicating things, myself...
It is more a question of style... and I was being probably a bit dogmatic in my thinking...
what i was thinking was that all of the "tools" wre grouped together and the wallpaper under some other misc. section
of course, the tree sort of eliminates this since there is no single download page where you find all implementations, but rather branches from the tree
btw, the 3 updated jpegs are the same image / different names
-
btw, the 3 updated jpegs are the same image / different names
ack... sorry, was in a hurry - they are fixed now...
-
Quick post here
I'm much too busy today. Probably tomorrow too. If someone wants to take over the comparison between various password programs, please do so. Otherwise, don't expect it to be finished for while.
-
Trephin--any interest?
-
Sorry Eric. I'll be equally busy. And I am a Mozilla Suite user and I am also not so free to install/test/remove software on the computer I use
-
No prob. Thanks anyway.
-
tanstaafl
ok,
for the roadmap page... now, i think either it needs to be called something else like Future Wish List or something since I think Roadmap implies more definite plans by the developer or eric needs to provide ETAs ... :-)
for the portability page... i still think you should just leave out the details of the planned(?) rollout of synchronization and just say that "Ongoing development will allow allow you to synchronize your setting across platforms" or something to that effect
for the homepage.... i would just add "can" to "... and can even automatically enter your usernames..." implying that it is an option and not forced upon the user. otherwise, i think the homepage looks good.
-
for the roadmap page... now, i think either it needs to be called something else like Future Wish List or something since I think Roadmap implies more definite plans by the developer or eric needs to provide ETAs ... :-)
Yeah, I thought of that too... I had actually called it 'To Do', but didn't like the way it looked... wishlist however suggests something less than actual planned enhancements that is already on the dev's ToDo list...
I could just add a line at the top of the page explaining that the Roadmap is a moving target right now and no definite dates are possible - or I could change the name...
'Planned Enhancements' maybe?
Anyone else?
for the portability page... i still think you should just leave out the details of the planned(?) rollout of synchronization and just say that "Ongoing development will allow allow you to synchronize your setting across platforms" or something to that effect
I actually did that - but the thing is, that page then looks very sparse. Also, upon reflection, I realized that since Synchronization will have a MAJOR impact on the 'Portability' of PASSWORDMAKER, people who might be looking at PASSWORDMAKER would be very interested in knowing this is on the radar. Otherwise, the only way for prospective PM users to learn of it would be by digging through the Forums.
I could whittle it down some, but personally, I think it should stay. Eric? Romeo? quixin? What are your thoughts?
for the homepage.... i would just add "can" to "... and can even automatically enter your usernames..." implying that it is an option and not forced upon the user.
excellent point, thanks - and done...
-
This is a common problem with Palm apps - when I went looking a few years ago for a password-management app, I did a search at one of the Palm-app download sites and ended with something like 70 apps to choose from - who has time to rummage through that many?
I knew I wanted certain features - a text field for notes, ability to categorize, desktop companion app, ability to modify on desktop or Palm and sync either way. (I managed to whittle the 70 down to a handfull - most of them didn't have desktop companions - but it took time just to do that whittling)
What I really wanted to help me choose...
After the comparison table is done for PasswordMaker, how about a cgi app on the web site (and maybe referred to from PM description at Firefox extensions) that shows a list of features, allows me to check "must have" "like to have" "don't care" and it shows a list of which password apps have those features?
(better, show the whole list, but grey out the ones that fail, showing a short reason why it failed - "FooPassword - doesn't have strong security algorithms" "BarPassword - doesn't have a desktop app"
The feature list would pretty much be the union of all features on all password apps.
This has an added benefit of reviewing web logs to see what people are putting in the "must have" list...
One problem is keeping the list up-to-date; really wouldn't be fair or ethical to compare newest PM against older other apps. (and would probably generate a lot of nasty messages... On the other hand, having PM "fail" because of missing must-have features generates feelings of honesty and integrity - I'm always impressed when someone says their product isn't what I'm looking for, and recommends another.)
- Al -
-
One problem is keeping the list up-to-date; really wouldn't be fair or ethical to compare newest PM against older other apps. (and would probably generate a lot of nasty messages... On the other hand, having PM "fail" because of missing must-have features generates feelings of honesty and integrity - I'm always impressed when someone says their product isn't what I'm looking for, and recommends another.)
Interesting idea - I'm sure that Eric wouldn't mind putting it up if someone else writes the code (and it works well), but it sounds like a lot of work, and not sure the benefit is worth it. I know I don't want *Eric* spending his time on something like that - there're too many PM features in the works right now - more than enough to keep him busy for the next 6 months or more... and don't forget he's got a day job, and a family...
As for keeping the list up to date - and eliminating the nasty messages - just allow people to 'correct' it - add comments saying that such-n-such a feature is now available in version x of prog y. This would have to be validate dof course, but it would provide a feedback mechanism rather than forcing people to the nastygram level, and make it easier for whoever is maintaining the list - they get prompted to when it becomes necessary...
-
I would be more than willing to add such a page to the website if someone else wrote the code for it...