On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Michael Drake wrote:
I've started working on the web site again.
The staging area for the new site is now:
http://test.netsurf-browser.org/
Cool.
Some general points:
+ The site must be standards compliant (this should be obvious ;)
+ I think we should strive to make the site as accessible as possible.
Therefore, in addition to technical standards compliance, we should try
to be WCAG compliant, too. Here's an online checker (warning: it's slow
as hell): http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/index.html
So the new pages are:
http://test.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/
I think the source icon should be more obviously different from the RO
binary one. Rationale:
1) Invariably, people don't fully read the page -- they just click on
the thing that most looks like what they want. Thus, making the
source icon more unique would reduce the likelihood of someone
downloading the sources when they actually wanted the NS binary.
2) Use of text within icons is bad. Firstly, it assumes the user
understands the language the icon text was written in. Secondly, it
requires reading, which defeats the pointt of an icon being a visual
hook for the user.
We should probably mention RISC OS 6 in the requirements for the RISC OS
version -- I can guarantee that someone will get confused. I'm aware of
the arguments as to whether we're in a position to actively support it, so
it may be better to resolve that question first.
Other than that, this page is fine.
http://test.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/testbuilds
This page is fine.
http://test.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/packages
This page is fine.
http://test.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/source
See comments about the source icon, above.
I think there should be some mention of the SVN revision number in
relation to the tarball (so as to avoid confusion). Ideally, this will
also be encoded in the tarball name.
Typo: s/reffered/referred/
[Aside: We need some documentation for cross-compiling NS for RO using
GCCSDK.]
Other than that, this page is fine.
http://test.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/extras
I think NSTheme should have a version number.
I also think that the themes page link should be more obvious.
Other than that, this page is fine.
http://test.netsurf-browser.org/downloads/themes/
This page is fine.
2. RISC OS 3.5+ not mentioned as supported. (None of the developers
run such a system and they are very old.)
Fine by me. We should probably have an FAQ entry explaining this, however.
6. Themes are linked from the Extras page and don't have their own
link on the nav. bar
I have no problem with this; see comments above about the obviousness of
the theme page link on the extras page, however.
7. Packages page has some packages hosted on our site. I think
we'll only host packages for platforms that don't yet have
a NetSurf package of the latest release. Is that right?
Presumably. That said, when we make a new release, we shouldn't make our
own packages for those platforms which package earlier versions (unless,
of course, there's some demand for it due to the platforms' packaging
lagging behind)
8. There are no packages of development builds for nsgtk
On Linux and BSD platforms, it's pretty common to build from source or
wait for the distro to package it. Thus I have no problem with this.
10. I'm not sure if there's any point in the links to the packages
stored elsewhere, like the Debian ones. (Should I delete them?)
At the very least, we should make it obvious that there are packages
available in distro repositories. This should prevent people trying to
build from source when they don't need to.
J.
