Re: Bug#793392: ITP: dcmtkpp -- Wrappers around DCMTK to have an easier API
Hi Phil,
On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:16:01PM +0100, Philip Hands wrote:
> Julien Lamy <lamy@unistra.fr> writes:
> ...
> > Would you agree with the following modifications?
> >
> > Short description: C++ wrapper library for DCMTK (DICOM toolkit)
>
> I think it ought to mention "medical imaging" or some similarly
> understandable (to an outsider) phrase in the short description.
>
> Then again, looking at the DCMTK packages, their descriptions strike me
> as pretty useless, which I see is just a reflection of the web site for
> DCMTK, which does not have the word "medical" anywhere on its extensive
> main page, only mentioning the type of images on linked pages such as
> the 'Introduction to DICOM' page.
>
> The 'amide' package seems to have gone the other way:
>
> software for Medical Imaging
>
> which strikes me as better, and has the benefit of turning up in
> apt-cache searches for all of DICOM, DCMTK and medical, whereas the
> dicom* packages don't come up for the 'medical' search. i.e.:
>
> apt-cache search medical
>
> Also, I note that the extra info you included makes it plain that DCMTK
> is also a C++ library, which is something that I'd not worked out from
> the long description. You might want to make sure that's clear.
>
> That's perhaps completely obvious to the target audience though, in
> which case the only important thing is to make sure that non medics will
> get the message "Not for you" as quickly as possible, preferably in the
> short description.
>
> Strangely enough I think the dcmtk* packages achieve that, since:
>
> OFFIS DICOM toolkit command line utilities
>
> tells me that I have no interest whatsoever in this, because I've no
> idea what OFFIS or DICOM stand for (or at least that was the case last
> week ;-) )
>
> So, either make the short description meaningful to all, or make it
> obviously uninteresting/incomprehensible to the uninterested.
Fully ACK. Any competent volunteer to fix the dcmtk desctiption (which
would be better as if I would try this).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: