Choose proper namings according to functionality inside I2Pconosle

[anonymous maybe]

there r some namings inside i2pconsole need to be changed or removed in order to make it clear for the user what is doing or talking about.

• inside ​http://127.0.0.1:7657/confignet section "IPv6 Configuration"

there is "Enable IPv6" , what does it mean exactly ???

we have disable IPv6 = good
we have Prefer IPv4 over IPv6 = good
we have Prefer IPv6 over IPv4 = good
we have Use IPv6 only (disable IPv4) = good

what in the world is Enable IPv6 for ??? if its standing for "use" then we have three options talking about the same thing = Prefer IPv4 over IPv6 & Prefer IPv6 over IPv4 & Use IPv6 only (disable IPv4).

so this is naming very confusing.

• ​http://127.0.0.1:7657/confignet section "TCP Configuration"

there is

Use auto-detected IP address
Always use auto-detected IP address

how is that helping to get any differences between these 2 options ??? if there is any differences in the functionality then one of them must be renamed or removed.

[slumlord]

As mentioned on IRC

<+slumlord> 'Use auto-detected IP address if we are not firewalled' 
             would apply only if the router isn't firewalled
<+slumlord> 'Always use auto-detected IP address (not firewalled)' 
             would mean that the user knows their router will never 
             be firewalled and to use the auto-detected IP always
<+slumlord> some patience and not thinking that these are superfluous 
            options that were just thrown in there with no thought or 
            consideration
<+slumlord> would be useful too

You seem to have ignored the last few words for the 2 options you mention in the TCP Configuration

• Use auto-detected IP address (currently XXXXXXX) if we are not firewalled
• Always use auto-detected IP address (Not firewalled)

I can understand if English isn't your first language, to me, these options make sense.

[anonymous maybe]

As mentioned on IRC

<anonymousmaybe> thank you slumlord for the explanation but thats not useful inside i2pconsole 
<anonymousmaybe> users who will use i2p no body expect from them to come and ask here again what is this and that for
<anonymousmaybe> ur explanations should be added to these choice when the mouse pointer click or move on them 
<anonymousmaybe> like when some option when u put the pointer on them it will show extra message explaining what is it talking about 
<anonymousmaybe> so its either an extra explanation added when u point on the option or rename the entire option or merge it into another option 

I can understand if English isn't your first language, to me, these options make sense.

if we are not firewalled , Not firewalled ?? not sure its about English problem but its about how much technical informative is that ?

i dont c any reason why these texts shouldnt be rephrased to more suitable terminologies which give the direct technical explanation behind it.

[zzz]

@OP please propose some specific changes/rephrasing that you would be happy with.

[anonymous maybe]

@OP please propose some specific changes/rephrasing that you would be happy with.

to be honest with u zzz i c that they r extra not needed options and the naming should be as following:

• inside ​​http://127.0.0.1:7657/confignet section "IPv6 Configuration"

(also merge IPv6 + IPv4 Firewalled by Carrier-grade NAT or DS-Lite settings)

• Prefer IPv4 over IPv6
• Prefer IPv6 over IPv4
• Use IPv4 only (disable IPv6)
• Use IPv6 only (disable IPv4)
• Disable IPv4 inbound (Firewalled by Carrier-grade NAT or DS-Lite)
• Disable IPv6 inbound (Firewalled by Carrier-grade NAT or DS-Lite)

and the section name to that would be like "IP version Configuration" or "IPv4 & IPv6 configurations" any doesnt matter since the choices r clear below the section name.

---

and inside ​​http://127.0.0.1:7657/confignet section "TCP Configuration"

Auto-detected IP address (currently XXXXXXX)

use only this one which i think its enough to do both functionality. user firewalled or not its gonna detect that and work accordingly.

---

i would add a suggestion if we also can merge "UDP Configuration" with "Externally reachable TCP port" since the whole idea of them r talking about ports configurations to be like this one:

• UDP port: XXXX
• TCP port: XXXX
• Use UDP port number same as in TCP port nummber. (Default)
• Completely disable UDP port (select only if behind a firewall that blocks outbound UDP)
• Note: you can adjust ports numbers according to your needs.

also for Use UDP ..etc choice above, make it as square with tick mark instead of circle with dote inside it. and by that this option will disabled if the user will choose "Laptop Mode" which will change both TCP and UDP randomly according to ticket #2216.

Section name would be : "Configure Ports" or "Configure TCP & UDP Ports"

---

this is really useful for new and even old users to make things more clear. i hope that my suggestions would suits ur implementations. ofcourse maybe more useful modifications need to be added to the list but thats what i c useful to add at the moment.

Thank You

[zzz]

Thanks OP for your suggestions.
In the future, would you please use standard English in trac tickets for maximum readability and understanding. Abbreviations such as "r", "ur", "c" make the conversation much more difficult than it needs to be. Thanks again.

[zzz]

I reduced the number of sections, converted several sections to subsections, and rearranged some of the sections and options, for clarity and consistency. For example, I put the UDP port and TCP port subsections next to each other.

In d4955e66ce64fb45990b99aba43394014372ffae 0.9.34-13. Let me know if it's an improvement.

I didn't rename or combine things as suggested by OP, but some changes may be possible. Ultimately, though, the UI options must still correspond with the underlying implementation. There's several orthogonal parts - IPv4/v6, TCP/UDP, and host/port - and various ways to attempt to combine the options for each. Every option on the form now is a result of some request or problem in past years, where the user needed a way to configure things for his network.

So currently I don't see many opportunities to reduce the number of options or combine things. While the page is complex, most users will never need to look at or change anything on it, and there's a note at the top of the page that says exactly that.

Leaving ticket open for testing and possible further changes.

[zzz]

hearing no objection, closing.

[anonymous maybe]

i just want to reopen this ticket because that the main issue of ipv6 confusion hasn't solved yet, or i see no reason why not to solve it.

[zzz]

The reasons are as stated in comment 6 above. Do you consider the changes made so far an improvement? What further changes do you suggest?

[anonymous maybe]

Replying to zzz:

The reasons are as stated in comment 6 above. Do you consider the changes made so far an improvement? What further changes do you suggest?

since you said "So currently I don't see many opportunities to reduce the number of options or combine things".

so no reason to keep this ticket open. because even if i will provide further options it will as well go through the same statement/reason you mentioned above which also cant be added.

closing ticket