Re: SOC: Quick thoughts on node design, anyone?

["stripe dog" <stripedog () gmail com>]

> From Fyodor:
> You might want
> to consider using the bigger circle for the vendor and the small one
> for device type (rather than vice versa).

I did, and guessed that at the smallest detail level, distinguishing
between devices might be more important. I had 50/50 odds though, so
such is life :-). I'll swap them.

> You might want to consider combining the 'vendor' and 'device type'
> images into just one image (as you had in iteration two.  This may be
> useful since many vendors only have one device type.  This is because
> many (most?) vendors only support one device type.  The system could
> look for a matching image for [vendor]-[devicetype].  If it is not
> found, the system could just use the image for [vendor].  If that
> doesn't exist, it can use the image for [devicetype].  The vendor and
> device type will be written in the red top bar anyway.  It seems like
> one big Linux penguin or Windows logo may be better than having the
> big "general purpose" icon and also a little penguin or Windows logo.
> Checking for [vendor]-[devicetype] first would allow us to have
> special-purpose icons if we want to distinguish (say) a Cisco router
> from a Cisco PIX firewall.

You bring up an important point. I chose to look at it in terms of
minimizing the number of seperate images. In looking at os-classes, I
saw a number of vendors who supported identical devices. For example,
linksys, cisco, apple, 3com, d-link, netopia, planet, proxim, smc, us
robotics, and a ton of other obscure vendors have an embedded WAP
listed. (Don't ask me how many have routers...) If I were to make a
combination vendor-device image for every vendor's WAP, router,
switch, and firewall, there would be PLENTY of images to create/have
the user modify. My goal in choosing to seperate vendors and devices
was to minimize the number of distinct images by allowing the vendor
image to be used for varying device types, and allowing the device
image to be used for various vendors.

This is all fine and good from the point of view of potential results
nmap is _capable_ of providing. You comment (and common sense) leads
me to believe that ultimately, actual real-world results may not
justify this separation, but I would like to discuss it further.

At this point, assume I will swap the vendor/device type positions.
What particular aspect of having one image appeals to you? The screen
real-estate? The coolness factor of having a combined Cisco-router
image? Do two circles look ugly? Am I overlooking something?

This is important, and I appreciate everyone's willingness to work
with me in making a wise decision.

> From Kevin Davis:
> I'd recommend changing the text on the Microsoft graphic from "Micro$oft" to
> something more mature like "Microsoft".

Thanks Kevin. While I might add that "yo.momma.com" is also hardly a
paragon of professionalism, your comment reminds me to state something
I assumed everyone was taking for granted. For now, assume that any
specific logo/ip addy/hostname/service is simply there to illustrate
the node structure as laid out on the screen. I could have simply
scribbled "fubar" across everything, but where's the immature fun in
that? Later on in the game, I will post potential vendor and/or device
icons, color schemes (for services) and the like for review. For now
though, take all the actual "content" with a grain of salt.

Thanks for the comments everyone, keep 'em coming!

-Cole


_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev