Hi, I think this is better.

Why are the untested builds marked as RC2? I mean, you already divided the
tested/approved and untested builds into two tables, why make users wonder
if this RC2 might mean this is not really 3.1.1 (or whatever the latest
version is)?

Yes, they are not released so they remain release candidates, but actually
the actual code is same as released version. I think this degrades the
second table and makes some users wonder if this is the right place to
download builds from.

Also, my two-cent suggestions:
A) make the preceding text in the top of the page shorter, more to the
point, so the user reads the really relevant things, and the tables begin
sooner;
Example: you have two similar sentences/passages that could probably be
merged into one or one could be shortened because of the other:
1) "A language pack contains only resource files for a specific language and
platform to show, e.g., menus and dialogs in your language. If available the
help content is also translated."
2) It is possible that not all elements of the user interface (e.g., menues
and dialogs) or the help topics are localized and therefore shown in English
as default language.

B) the sections and shortcuts to both tables should be renamed to something
more meaningful:
1) for the first section "OOo 3.1.x QA-approved language packs" ; the
wording "and older" makes one wonder if they are obsolete; 3.1.x says it
all, the latest available version is displayed;
2) for the second section I suggest "OOo 3.1.1 untested language packs";

C) the "Linux 32-bit RPM" header and "Linux 32-bit DEB" header in the second
table can be spanned together (<td>span="2"</td> or whatever) into one
"Linux 32-bit" because every link then states "deb" or "rpm"; same goes for
the Linux 64-bit headers, that can become one;

D ) sentence "For production, use the builds from the first table." is
funny; if I want Slovenian, how can I use the first table? Will I download
Serbian instead? I mean ... The preceding sentences already say it all: "*The
software offered in the second table is not recommended for production
deployment. Use on own risk.*"

Lp, m.

2009/11/2 Marcus Lange <[email protected]>

> Hi all,
>
> as an alternative I've created a langpack website with all files listed in
> 2 tables:
>
> http://download.openoffice.org/next/langpack_all.html
>
> Maybe we can agree on this as commpromise?
>
> Best regards
>
> Marcus
>
>
>
> Marcus Lange wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> as promised I thought about a new structure and have created the following
>> websites to ease the download of RC builds:
>>
>> http://download.openoffice.org/next/other_rc.html
>> http://download.openoffice.org/next/langpack_rc.html
>>
>> Please have a look if the names of the languages are correct. It's not
>> easy to find the correct wording for so many, so please bear with me. ;-)
>>
>> Keep in mind that this is just a test to show you how it could look like.
>> It's not yet the final version (e.g., all builds that are already released
>> have to be deleted from here, of course).
>>
>> Once we have a final state I would update the index page (
>> http://download.openoffice.org/next), so that both new websites can be
>> found via links and make some announcements.
>>
>> Please tell me what you think about this.
>>
>> Thanks in advance.
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Marcus
>>
>>
>>
>> Marcus Lange wrote:
>>
>>> Hi all,
>>>
>>> I think I haven't taken into account the many differences with builds,
>>> testing and NL communities. So, I'm sorry if anyone feels offend. This was
>>> not my intension or to ignore the situation.
>>>
>>> I'll think about what could be done to provide the builds to the users
>>> (tested or not, released or not). Because it's a very high number this will
>>> be not easy. And take into account that someone has to maintain this monster
>>> of list (7 platforms with 90+ languages). ;-)
>>>
>>> Just wanted to take the chance to answer here early before my absence the
>>> next week. Therefore please don't expect to have a fast solution.
>>>
>>> Best regards
>>>
>>> Marcus
>>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
>
>

Reply via email to