Consider a separate “Torrc Manual” for Whonix torrc-related issues as per the Tor document layout (but not overlapping all their pre-existing work which you can simply link to directly and quote where necessary): How can we help? | Tor Project | Support
Consider a “Support” page that is similar in design to TAILS. People can then stop wasting Patrick’s time, since most of these links can be replicated for Whonix. This will save lots of effort in the forums, thus freeing up Patrick for further development of the OS which is his core work. See below for the TAILS example: Tails - Support
Consider replicating elements of the Tails menu. This could then be embedded on each page of the Whonix website. For example:
Help and Support
Use the Qubes method (across the top of each web page):
In addition to the above list, you might consider an “Experts Guide” section, which would have a sub-menu similar to the one on the Tor project website. Their example is below (obviously it would need to be changed for relevant Whonix sub-categories):
Installing Tor on Debian/Ubuntu
Installing Tor on Fedora/CentOS
Installing Tor Source
Configuring a Relay manually
Configuring a Relay graphically
Configuring a Hidden Service
Verify package signatures
As currently proposed, at a minimum in the new design a ‘Docs’ or ‘Documentation’ or 'Wiki(s)'tag is required on the main Whonix page. This is the common approach used on all other privacy/anonymity websites e.g. JonDoNym, Qubes, TAILS, Tor etc.
Perhaps the ‘Help’ tab on the existing Whonix page could be recast as ‘Further help’ in the new design. The vast majority of users should not have to use stackexchange, the forum, torstackexchange or other avenues if they have read and understood the documentation properly - that is, once it is cleaned up and organized properly.
As a general comment, IMHO there is far too much text on each individual Whonix web page. The reason the other privacy/anonymity websites are far more user-friendly is because they balance nicely the use of text vs screen shots vs occasional videos on use vs tables. Less is more.
Of course, the eventual detailed (advanced) manual should retain the majority of information gathered over the last few years, but in a re-ordered state.
I don’t think that would be useful for users. A user usually has in mind what goal to accomplish. That goal is not “torrc”, but “make it work” or “censorship circumvention”. Instructions on how to modify torrc to accomplish various goals is documented on various documentation pages.
What specifically does the tails support page do better? Please create a new forum thread.
“if they have read and understood the documentation properly” - As sad as that is, it is an entirely unrealistic assumption. The redirection of support questions of generic upstream project questions to other upstreams was actually done by me to save time and space in Whonix forum.
Side menus waste a lot space and look awful on small screens.
There is a lot room for lots of opinions here. @bnvk, the new Qubes usability designer, once told me, that he isn’t offended by long scrolling pages.
If you desire any changes to that blog post, I can do them. If you like to have your own blog account to make the edits/posts yourself, I would not mind about that either. If not deemed useful, we can also put the blog post on hold. (usability is not a democracy.)
Might be an idea worth considering, would however for the time being be a rather low priority.
Not sure whether that would make sense for Whonix. Reasonable for a host OS like Qubes which employs extensively modified tech, not so much for something like Whonix whose essential “architecture page” would contain of look at VBox/KVM/Qubes.
Has somewhat already been discussed in another thread about changing the way the documentation is sorted. Will thus be likely done once the “wiki question” is decided.
Not sure what wouldn’t overlap there, as Whonix doesn’t change anything about Tor…
We had that discussion quite a lot of times actually. I am caught somewhere inbetween here. Trimming the documentation down is the wrong approach in my eyes, yet I see why people might think of the documentation as overwhelming. Digging up an old concept, which wasn’t realisable with mediawiki might be a good idea now, namly the idea that there should be a “button based” system which allows to seperatly display advanced and beginners guides.
I can see where you are coming from and am able to agree on the space aspect, however the alternative would be to force users to click through dozens of sites before finding what they need. Was somewhat inspired by this: Redirecting…
Maybe a drop-down menu or a which may be called when needed could be a solution here.
I think I might understand where you are coming from and I guess you have a valid point.
Assumption: When users click the quick start guide they may wish to click through it page by page.
Now, when we had a quickstart documentation overview (similar to our current one, but much, much smaller)… People would click a page, read it. And then be stranded. Bad. They would have to use their browser’s back button to click the next page. This may not be good UX. With a sidebar, this might be better. Impossible for me to answer, I hope there is a clear UX designer answer somewhere.
Does that nail it?
What I find interesting is the backwards / forwards button feature of the Tails documentation. (example)
←System requirements | Features and included software→
It’s at the top and button of each and every of their documentation pages. I dunno if it is great at the top, but at the bottom I guess it is great. Happy to be corrected.
If you look at the current draft, you may notice that I already included “Next >” and “< Back” buttons. The idea of that was, like you suggested, to allow a constant stream of information, letting users read the most important things in one go.
So maybe keeping these buttons, but replacing the bar with a drop-down menu may be a solution…