I enjoy the new look and the fluidity of the site. It conveys a sense of what developers can achieve graphically with the technology available in the Qt framework.
One thing I feel that could be improved is http://www.qt.io/product/ -- it gives me the impression that Qt is a commercial-only product (the starting price is 20€/month). It doesn't even hint that a community version is available. On 18 September 2014 08:26, Lorn Potter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 18/09/14 05:09, Kuba Ober wrote: >> One of the reasons I loath to recommend to the management to go back to >> paying for Qt licenses is that we’d have been sponsoring what amounts to 2 >> or 3 major rebrandings and “revamps”, and it seems like throwing money down >> the drain. As a user, I want good code. The website, as far as I’m >> concerned, can be text-only. Any money that the owners of Qt spend for >> anything besides the code is, to us as the end users,*our* money burned for >> frivolities. > > speak for yourself. > > I think it looks quite nice. They've done a good job making it look > appealing and useful. > > While text only web site might be ok with you, managers or directors > scoping out a dev framework for the first time might be wary about > paying for something with a web site from 1980's > > Quality of code also runs to the web servers. I am a bit wary about dev > apps/frameworks/tools whose web site looks like gak. +1 If you are already world-renowned, you could get away with a text only site (like Warren Buffett: http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/ ). However, if you are not yet world-renowned, taking this route would do no favours for your business -- it's akin to meeting potential corporate clients while dressed in an old T-shirt, shorts, and slippers. It's not frivolities; it's an investment. Regards, Sze-Howe _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
