A couple more "fixed" news items needed?

Jeroen Coumans jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org
Thu Oct 30 08:36:55 PST 2003


Hi Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational. You said the following on 10/28/03
04:20:
>  1. Because of the *striking* predominance of the news section, it
>     immediately draws the eye to that area. So I would move the three
>     items at the top of the screen above the "chef" (Beyond LFS,
>     Automated LFS and Hints) to the gray area just below the chef's box
>     and above the news items, or to the bottom of the chef's box.
> 
>     Enlarge them just *slightly* (or additional highlighting) so they
>     compete with the news and the boxes going down the left and right
>     sides.
> 
>     This would allow the chef's box to be vertically shortend without
>     distortion of the chef; enlarging the chef would be possible too.

I don't agree. The toplinks are seperate sections and thus should stand 
out in a seperate section. I'm going to style them some more so they 
stand out a bit, hopefully this will take care of it.

>  2. Regardless of the above, I would add the Wiki home on that line. If
>     we want to promote use of the wiki, it needs greater prominence.

Categorically, the Wiki doesn't belong there. It can get it's own 
section in the development section or in the general section.

>  3. The Organization docs and/or the Roadmap might go there too.
>     Keep in mind that there are potentially two versions of the Roadmap
>     and Org docs at any given moment: the current official (which should
>     be *not* in the wiki any longer) and the WIP on the wiki. On further
>     reflection: maybe only "Organization" which would be a drop-down
>     menu, I guess, and would incorporate all things like Roadmap (wiki
>     version and current stable), teams, .... This based on the
>     assumption that they would be less frequently visited and so could
>     live in a "drop-down" without great inconvenience to the user.

This can be done in the wiki section I mentioned above.

>  4. I like the search stuff where it's at, but I would like a wider
>     "enter text..." box.

OK what is your suggestion? Currently it's set at 15 characters. 20 or 
perhaps even 25 is probably acceptable for the majority of the users.

>  5. The news is *substantially "taller" than either of the left or right
>     menu boxes. That makes for a lot of wasted screen space. My feeling
>     is that the left and right could be combined on one side and the
>     extra widht given to the news. This would mke the news less "tall"
>     and reduce the amount of scrolling back up to get to the menu area.
>     My bias would be to have the menu on the left, but either side
>     would do.

I thought about that too and was a bit hesistant. Glad you feel the same 
way. Common practice currently is to have a navigation menu on the 
right, since that gives more focus on the content . This is no problem, 
just requires a bit of fiddling with the stylesheet. Just waiting for 
some extra spare time to test it all out.

>  6. Left side: as mentioned, change "Report a bug" to something more
>     general; add a patches entry under download (too much work to get to
>     them right now); remove developers wiki from there, it's sort of out
>     of place IMO (as well as implying read-only).

Agreed.

>  7. I don't really follow having "Project:" and no  project under it. I
>     would expect to see "Lfs", "BLFS", "Alfs", ... with that heading. I
>     think better would be "LFS" and under that *everything* on the left
>     side would be indented slightly. Same would apply for BLFS or ALFS.

The idea behind the "Project:" was to provide a common menu name for 
project-specific general sections. I like your suggestion, makes much 
more sense.

>  8. I would like to see "Current stable" and "Previous Releases"
>     combined into "Stable Releases". Then sort in reverse on the list
>     printed so that the latest stable is at the top and the oldest at
>     the bottom. Reduces mouse activity and shortens left side a bit
>     more. No additional user workload either (in fact, less).

Agreed.

>  9. Under "Read", "CVS", might want to mention about the gen times and
>     possible delays for mirrors to get synch'd. If there is a known
>     "schedule" of synch-ups, a link to that would be useful.

Agreed. Mirrors sync daily (or should anyways). The LFS book is 
generated daily too so a mirror may lag 1-2 days behind the main server.

> 10. For the stable and current releases, a link to the wiki errata (not
>     yet active AFAICT) and roadmap should be included.

?

> 11. Need a link to community acknowledgements in the wiki (not yet
>     implemented).

Best would be a link in the acknowledgements, right?

> General strategy: whereever I'm at in the navigation tree for a
> particular item, can I get to a closely related thing quickly? So, from
> reading a book, for example, can I get directly to errata /no matter
> where I am in the book/. To its roadmap? To its "team" (list of
> editors), ...

For the actual books, this is future-music right now. We'll have to wait 
for the XML changes to happen.

> That's it in a nutshell (well, a rather large nut, I guess).

Thanks!

-- 
Jeroen Coumans (jeroen at linuxfromscratch.org)
FAQ and Website Maintainer
{faq,website}@linuxfromscratch.org




More information about the website mailing list