Re: web pages
I'll answer the following first, it seems to be the source of our
misunderstanding:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:04:05AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > 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.
jigdo and the pik always create a bit-exact copy of the latest
released CD images. Just how they do it is not important to the user;
what is important to her is that the result is the same as a HTTP/FTP
download.
As a result, in my eyes, jigdo & pik are very closely coupled to the
CD images section. So the logical consequence is that they should be
listed on /CD/images/, but I object to that too, and that was what I
was getting at in the rest of my mail:
On Thu, Jan 03, 2002 at 03:04:05AM +0100, Josip Rodin wrote:
> > 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?
Yes, they still are, but see above - they *belong* to /CD/images/, but
once they are there, all the info is split up.
I have to apologize, I realize this wasn't clear at all from my
posting. :-/
> > 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?
But not by making the site more difficult to navigate! That was the
big problem with the "click-through maze" on the old cdimage site. OK
OK, it's just one more click... but an unnecessary click IMHO.
> Because images/index tells them they can choose between H/F and
> rsync.
IMHO rsync is not for normal end users, just mirrors and some "power
users". jigdo will be a full replacement for rsync, so I put the rsync
list into the mirroring/ directory.
[My basic assumption is that the average page visitor is no geek like
us, instead either a Windows user or a relatively unexperienced Linux
user who would not want to type any commands.]
> > 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 :)
Not really:
- Sometimes, no CD images are released. For example, there were no
images for 2.2r1
- Sometimes, something breaks and the images need to be regenerated.
For example 2.2r0 broke on Sparc, 2.2r4 broke on PowerPC, leading to
"2.2r0a" and "2.2r4.1" images.
> > Furthermore, IMHO adding a link to "jigdo" WITHIN the text of the bullet
> > for "http/ftp download" may confuse the visitor.
>
> [snip] 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.
My plan is to move the jigdo bullet up the list (immediately behind
the net install bullet) and http-ftp to the bottom once jigdo's beta
phase is over. The http-ftp bullet was written with that in mind,
hence the reference to jigdo...
> 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?
Hm, maybe. OTOH, that unknown word may make them curious and ensure
they read on. :)
> 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'm not denying that the pages are about more than CD images, *BUT*
there is no clean way of separating the different points. E.g.,
minimal bootable CD images are for net installs, but they are CD
images too, plus in the future they may be available via jigdo, etc.
etc.
The approach of the original page was to put it all on one page, in
order to catch *all* the different things that different visitors
might associate with the term Debian on CD: "buy", "download", "don't
know, please tell me".
Arguably, the net install info really doesn't fit there very well. But
if there's no discussion on the page comparing net installs with full
CDs ("Should I install Debian via the network instead of from CD
ROM?"), the visitor will never ever be convinced to change her mind.
-- Consensus on debian-cd appears to be that we really *should* try to
change her mind, though.
> 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...
Well, my irritation slowly built up when I had a closer look. :-) You
have made *lots* of little changes in *lots* of places without asking.
Many thanks for all your work so far! I *do* appreciate that, we just
need to coordinate better.
I'm sorry, but I'm still very much of the opinion that
- the extra /CD/images/ page is wrong and should disappear
- the netinst page should be restored to what it was originally like
- ditto (mostly) with /CD/
Cheers,
Richard
--
__ _
|_) /| Richard Atterer | CS student at the Technische | GnuPG key:
| \/¯| http://atterer.net | Universität München, Germany | 0x888354F7
¯ '` ¯
Reply to: