Re: [rainmap] RFC on UI mockups

[Fyodor <fyodor () insecure org>]

On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 03:47:42PM -0700, alexandru wrote:
> Upon further review of both the Zenmap UI and the aforementioned
> class (Fyodor also brought it up during our last meeting) I think the
> most sensible approach would be to take an approach to UI similar to
> Zenmap's. I see a big benefit in allowing users that are familiar with
> Zenmap already to quickly transfer that knowledge over to Rainmap.
>
> Are there any parts of the Zenmap profile editor UI that anyone has
> ideas for improvements for? I mean this both in terms of grouping of
> options (though that seems quite straightforward) and other usability
> concerns. David, I reckon you might have spent the most amount of time
> thinking about it, so maybe you have some ideas queued up already.

Good ideas.  I agree that Zenmap's powerful NmapOptions class is the
sort of approach we should take, and maybe we can even reuse some of
the same code, and some of the same option grouping.  But Rainmap
isn't meant as a full featured Nmap GUI like Zenmap is, so it doesn't
need to offer nearly as many options.  This makes it easier for us to
implement and secure, and easier for users to use.  For this reason,
we can probably fit the scan options on one page rather than dividing
them into 7 tabs as Zenmap does.  Of course the options should still
be grouped together by purpose even on the same page.

For example, Rainmap won't have to do Idle scans, FTP bounce attacks,
-iR, user-specified -iL, or anything at all from the "Source" tab.
Most of the "timing" tab is unneccessary as well.

Cheers,
Fyodor
_______________________________________________
Sent through the nmap-dev mailing list
http://cgi.insecure.org/mailman/listinfo/nmap-dev
Archived at http://seclists.org/nmap-dev/