Re: web pages
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 02:21:47AM +0100, Richard Atterer wrote:
> > Well, it does also make sense to separate the stuff that's for
> > normal images and for the other things, it's separated logically
> > already (check the new www.d.o/CD/ page -- I've made it even harsher
> > in not recommending the images :)
>
> The big plus of the original site, IMHO, was that *all* the choices
> were there on just one page, and people seemed to like that. That page
> didn't even get very big - so why should one split it apart?!
Well, they still are, but not on /CD/images/ but on /CD/. I don't
understand?
> Another point: You've added another click on the way from / to the
> image download. That is _completely_unnecessary_!
You mean linking from /CD/ to images/ instead of images/http-ftp/? Weren't
we supposed to discourage people from using HTTP/FTP? Because images/index
tells them they can choose between H/F and rsync.
> Furthermore - the navigation bar now contains a mix of links going to
> pages that are separate according to you, so were you going to change
> it, if so, how?
I don't understand this question.
> And, people wanting to use jigdo or the pik never see the "Latest CD image
> release is XX", were you going to duplicate it on those pages?
How does the latest full image release relate to them? I thought they pick
up individual packages from a mirror, not from the image.
(And the information about the latest version of Debian on the mirrors is
plastered all over www.d.o so that shouldn't be a problem :)
> Furthermore, IMHO adding a link to "jigdo" WITHIN the text of the bullet
> for "http/ftp download" may confuse the visitor.
But I didn't add it, it was already there. The original paragraph was:
<li><a href="http-ftp/">Download CD images directly via HTTP or
FTP.</a> Due to space and bandwidth constraints, only very few
sites are able to supply direct HTTP/FTP download links.
<em>These sites may use bandwidth throttling,</em> downloads are
bound to be slower than with jigdo.</li>
Oh, wait. It was mentioned but not linked to. Little difference, it will
still raise a question "jigdo is better? where is it?". The link will merely
provide an instant answer (possibly confusing :), instead of leaving them
puzzled.
Maybe it's better not to mention it at all, so that we don't interrupt the
reader's scanning and let them parse through all of the items?
> Oh, and why is "http-ftp" one part of your separation, and
> "jigdo/pik/netinstCD/vendors" the other?
But it's not like that. Those five things are in the same big category to
the user, so it's a separation into five parts, and the CD page links to:
* netinst images
* buying from vendors
* full images
* pseudo-image kit
* jigsaw download
> Um, so in a nutshell - will you delegate managing the CD image
> *content* to me? After all, that's what I volunteered for, but I'm
> getting the impression I'm not needed. (If I'm not, then that's fine
> with me; just state so.)
Hey, I'm not saying that. It's just that your pages include a lot more than
that just "CD images", so it shouldn't all be put under the "CD images"
category, that doesn't make sense. If we put things in the wrong place we
make it harder for people to find them.
I see how it can see from your point of view that I overextended myself --
however I did put in a fair bit of effort into making this happen and your
comments have been positive throughout, until this issue...
--
2. That which causes joy or happiness.
Reply to: