A couple more "fixed" news items needed?
Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational
bill at nospam.dot
Thu Oct 30 09:11:58 PST 2003
On Thu, 30 Oct 2003, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Hi Bill Maltby, LFS Organizational. You said the following on 10/28/03
> > 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.
> 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.
The visual representation will help I think. But I don't understand the
"separate sections" thought. From my POV, we are at a "Linux From
Scratch" website that has sub-projects LFS, BLFS, ALFS, etc. All equal.
My desire for them under the chef stems only from minimal eye and mouse
movement considerations, and the the predominance mentioned earlier. So
if my eye is drawn strongly to the news area - and mine is - then I will
find the other projects more quickly if they are closer to where my eye
and/or mouse is drawn to.
Not a major thing. Like I said, I'm not GUI oriented. But I am *lazy*.
> > 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.
I would guess 25 is wide enough. I tend to use longer search arguments
to reduce the browse time, but no need to penalize others excessively.
Whatever you can get without it becoming visually unappealing.
> > 10. For the stable and current releases, a link to the wiki errata (not
> > yet active AFAICT) and roadmap should be included.
IIRC, the wiki was to contain an errata page for stable and printed
books. Some of the older books don't mention the errata area. So I
presume that they would need a link from the website entry to navigate
there. Even though the newer books will reference the wiki, a reminder
online can't hurt.
So, I was thinking that when the user went into the "Stable Releases"
area and received the sorted list, maybe a link to the associated errata
page in the wiki too might be really handy.
I do hope that all this org stuff is going to work out and the errata
and other wiki things will be effectively maintained.
As to the roadmap, we will have a stable one and one in development at
any given time. So I thought a link to both would be useful.
But I have a conflicting thought about all this too. Don't know how
valid it is.
For the overall project, there are many "organizational" things.
Roadmaps is certainly one. LFS teams is another. I don't know if it
would be better to plan on linking to all those sorts of things from the
eventual "Organization" link or not. My structured side says this is the
right way to do it. My "user firendly" and "lazy side" says provide
links with minimal navigation. Oh well. Since it is a website and a
major function is navigation, I think a little less of the structural
considerations and more of the ease-of-navigation and minimal traversal
effort is more important.
> > 11. Need a link to community acknowledgements in the wiki (not yet
> > implemented).
> Best would be a link in the acknowledgements, right?
Yep. I should have said "to community ...". Sorry for the confusion.
You know me - always glad to spout off! :)
Use fixed above line to mail me direct
More information about the website