Quoting Louis Suarez-Potts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Sure, they are nicer, in that they are more focused. I'd like to see some other alternatives, however.
Cheers, louis
[snip]
I really think we need to get on a 6 month release cycle. Where changes are applied every 6 months and major releases are done every 8 months since it doesnt just affect the homepage.
A good example is the spanish site. The site didn't move (as far as changes go) since version 1.1.1. The canges were sporadically, since I jump in the site, the page has been re-design almost 5 times. That includes season changes (christmass, OOo aniversary, etc), to actual reshape of content.
[snip]
Hi --
Mozilla, as well, has been used as an example throughout this process and as far as I have noticed, it changes frequently.
Personally, I have several issues with the current proposal, the biggest of which is the "get them to download it!" philosophy -- it is a HUGE download (7 - 9 hours here) -- as a dial-up user I am NOT pleased to be surprised by such things. Before committing to something like that, I want to know more about what I'm getting, and so --
I also think the component links should be clickable (they may be now, I haven't checked today), but I understand we don't have pages for this yet and that's something that can be done when we do have them.
But surely what is currently proposed is not the be-all, end-all, never to be done again, has to be perfect (the unattainable standard), home page?
As has been mentioned before, especially in a community as large and varied as this one, there is just no way to make everyone happy. While I guess such a project can never be considered "done", can't it be thought of as "ready"?
Tam
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
