Alternative to Create a new wireless network

[James Cameron]

On Thu, Apr 22, 2010 at 05:17:17PM +0200, Simon Schampijer wrote:
> based on the discussion in this thread I have created a first patch 
> attached to ticket #9845 [1] implementing the three default ad hoc 
> networks for channel 1, 6 and 11.

Merged with my other wireless changes and tested on XO-1.5.  Clicking on
one of the new icons doesn't seem to create an ad-hoc network.  I didn't
look into why yet.  Maybe something in what I've changed.

> * Do we agree to have three icons, one for each available channel?

Yes, three, one for each of the three well separated channels one, six
and eleven.  The icons should look different to each other in some way
so that they can be chosen by voice among the users.

My preference is a distinctive colour and brightness set with large
localised numerals over the icon.  The icons should look the same on all
laptops, and should not look at all like the XO-1 mesh icons.

> * Naming: do we agree to name the networks 'Mesh Network [channel name]' 
> even though they are no mesh networks but in order to keep 'backwards 
> compatibility'?

No.  I'd prefer we lose the word Mesh for these icons.  I suggest the
word "Our" or "My" instead of "Mesh".

> * I do not save the connection to the nm-config file and don't mark them 
> to autoconnect, so we do not autoconnect when starting Sugar. I think, 
> as an ad-hoc network is not a persistent configuration this makes sense.

Yes, certainly.

> * Should we add an icon for 'mesh-network-connected' to better represent 
> the mesh network we are currently connected to?

I don't understand this question, sorry.  Oh, maybe you mean that the
icons should indicate connection status.  Yes!  In the same way that
access point icons are changed; parentheses either side.

> * Connection sharing: So far the connections created are 'link-local' 
> connections. What is the plan for sharing an internet connection over an 
> adhoc network? As the XO has only one network device, i guess this is 
> not a common scenario.

No opinion.

> * Remove the 'Create Network' ability of the wireless frame device 
> palette: As we have the default ad-hoc networks we may not need the 
> ability to create adhoc networks anymore. It may be more confusing then 
> of any help, what do others think?

Yes, remove it.

-- 
James Cameron
http://quozl.linux.org.au/