Our first demo can be seen at demodev.responsible-internet.org.
Note: The demo has been tested on a 14-inch full-hd laptop. You might need to zoom in/out accordingly, in order to see the interaction at the home page correctly. For example, on a 24-inch monitor you should scale it up to 150%.
Demo page progress (To do, In progress, For review, Done)
| Page | Status | Review Remark |
| Adrian | For review | (Koen) The blue text looks clickable but is not. Why not use <b> tags? Saying the problem is NP hard raises questions about how you addressed it. I feel like the link between the initial page and the other pages could be improved. (Paola) I was also confused by the blue text. I find the figures too small. Is there interactivity planned in the Algorithm tab? (Bulut) I also find the figures under the “Path Selection Example” tab hard to read. You could use numbering on the Algorithm tab. And I think the plural form of “AS” should be “ASes”. (Shyam) Stating the problem as NP-Hard without explanation is too direct and difficult to understand. Rather than using 'ASs can support “features” or not', I think you should look for the features that an AS has implemented. (Gustavo) Consider adding a relation of your work to CATRIN. |
| Angelos | For review (demo not functional yet) | (Koen) Before talking about how to collect/forward telemetry, I think it would be nice to mention why to collect telemetry and about what (i.e., latency). Second tab shows a video, but I cannot enable audio and am not sure if I should be able to. The demo page needs some additional explanation on what it shows. (Shyam) Explaining the purpose of collecting telemetry in 1/2 sentences will make it easier to understand because it seems to be a more technical explanation now. (Adrian) I find it confusing that the INT example is on the left and the slides are on the right while both show similar content; it's probably better to just move the “Downsides” part out of the slides and remove the slides. Other than that, I agree with Koen and Shyam. (Paola). I repeat something said by others: in the landing page there is no motivation for the work. In the short paragraph there is a CATRIN Policy Zone, which does not come back in the landing page. What is this actually? (Bulut) I agree with adding a short explanation about the reasons for collecting telemetry. Also, titles can be added to the figures to make them easier to understand. (Gustavo) I could not easily use your demo tab. What is next when you select the switch and click the “display active path”? It did not show me anything. |
| Bulut | For review | (Koen) For the deployment and characteristics analysis tab, I am wondering about the outcome of these steps that you mention. In general your focus is very much on the methodology and not as much on results or outcomes. I think the usability argument and link to CATRIN could be improved. (Shyam) I agree with Koen: adding a few sentences explaining its link to the CATRIN goal might be useful. (Adrian) In the first page, converting the text to bullet points would make it a bit easier to read. A content-related comment (not sure how relevant this is for this demo): be careful with the word “transparency” - I'm sure middleboxes have been studied extensively in the context of end-to-end transparency, but you mean something different here. (Paola) I find the text in the balloon too long. It should be shorter. In the landing page I do not understand what the demo is really telling me. I get some IP addresses back, so what? The two previous tab are 'dry', any way to make these pages more lively? (Gustavo) As we discussed in the meeting, make the IP address in the demo visible that is a link and the user should click on it. |
| Gustavo | For review | |
| Koen | Feedback implemented | (Shyam) The figure about “Baking recipes” in the NSM tab seems a bit unclear to me. If it is a portal about cooking, “Baking recipes portal” might sound clearer. (Adrian) From the page, it is a bit unclear what your precise contribution is; you created a new NSM system? (Paola) I like the first two tabs, but I find the last two heavy (third) or dry (fourth). Any plan for some interactivity? (Bulut) Titles can be added to the figures to make them easier to understand. It is hard to read the figure on the “NIP Augmentations” tab. Also, is there a way to show the integration example interactively? (Gustavo) What augmentation do you do in the NIP? Maybe add that |
| Shyam | For review | (Koen) I found your page difficult to find from the main page, the area is a bit small. |
| Siraj | For review | (Koen) The relation between the different tabs could be improved. (Adrian) Related to what Koen said, maybe an initial Overview page could help making things clear. (Paola) In line with the other comments, I also think some interactive 'mini demo' would help. (Bulut) You could mention the relevance to CATRIN. (Shyam) I see 2 figures out of 3 are taken from other sources, it is difficult to understand which part of those figures are addressed by CATRIN's goal. I guess explicitly stating these things would make pages easier. |
General comments: (Adrian) We should all double-check that our summary paragraphs on the main page map well to our landing pages. (Paola) There should be a way to go back to the main page from each landing page, a back button.
First page improvements:
1) add a table with links, and when the user hovers the mouse over the items, the main figure will be highlighted. Now, it is too hard to find people's pages due to the current design (location of objects).
(Adrian) We could remove the hovering part (to prevent the issues with screen resolution) and perhaps add letters directly to the figure (A, B, C, …) that mark every item that currently links to a landing page. Then add to the table the letters to show the link between who did what. One can simply click in the table to get to the landing page. Example: In the figure, A marks Angelos' part, and the table contains “Angelos | A | overview_paragraph | link_to_landing_page”
Demo scenarios Slides