Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Hi, Raphael Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In addition to some of the things mentioned in Christoph's TODO list, I would like to add a couple of things that should avoided for the Gimp's web site: [lots of good points deleted] * Please don't use GIFs! Salut, Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Tom Rathborne schrieb: So this really could have been a chicken and egg problem. Yes, it seemed very chicken and egg to me. That's why I just started doing something on my own. I have already made about half of the decisions in Christoph's excellent list -- but I doubt that most people will agree with all of those decisions. Maybe someone will find _something_ useful in what I have done. Then please share your decisions you have done so far. Describe what language do you use, what layout, andsoon. We could then avoid making duplicate efforts. I will then put up a second list with done-so-fars and todos. Another thing that comes to my mind is i10n. When designing the content-enginge one should keep that in mind. We could have a documents in various languages on one page. The language would be selected by the browsers preferences. Christoph ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Andreas Jaekel schrieb: I suggest putting the GIMP web site in CVS along the source code. We do this with our company web site and it has the usual benefits: versioning, locking, all privileged people can do updates. I'll put that on the list. Christoph ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Michael Spunt schrieb: Yes, it seemed very chicken and egg to me. That's why I just started doing something on my own. I have already made about half of the decisions in Christoph's excellent list -- but I doubt that most people will agree with all of those decisions. Maybe someone will find _something_ useful in what I have done. I tried some stuff ony my own, too. Maybe you would like to have a look at it: http://www.technoid.f2s.com/gimp.org/index.php Changing the navigation structure was the main goal here, so it differs from your effort. We could test various navigation structures without much design involved. That way we could then use the most appealing. I'm going to ask a graphic-designer, who is a friend of me, to help us with the design or layout. Perhaps we could have some input from a different viewpoint. (user vs. developer) Christoph ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Hi! On Sat, 19 May 2001 09:09:55 +0200 Raphael Quinet [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Well, this looks interesting but I do not know if such a design is appropriate for a Gimp site. Your design is modern/futuristic, but these characteristics are not directly related to image editing, Perhaps I should have mentioned that this design is not a design yet (do you really think I would allow something ugly like that to become gimp.org? :-)). I just like some frame for content and it's sure the next design won't be plain text either. Anyway, I am not sure that a completely new design for the Gimp site is necessary. It would be nice, but upating the presentation is IMHO much less urgent than updating the contents. There are many broken It is. The blue bar at the left is the only thing I like about the current design but it's tied to the old navigation and I'm not sure if it would be good to reuse. Everything else are clumsy tables which make an old-fashioned impression. I'm not aiming at a Pixecore type design but have a look at this: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html It's simple, clean navigation, not overbloated and shows some little gimmicks that can be done (see the circles). We don't need (want) to copy Adobe, but the design should be as functional as theirs. Correct me if I missed a point here. * The new layout should not break the existing URLs. Many people have bookmarked some pages on www.gimp.org, and many web sites have direct links to the download pages, to the documentation or to the mailing lists page. So even if the navigation system is redesigned, there should still be something available from the same URLs as today. If a user requests a page not available on the server, he / she gets redirected to news, 404, we have changed or whatever from where he / she can navigate to the required page and realizes that it's time to update bookmarks. Backward-compatibility isn't cool. :-) Also, a new navigation structure would really force a new file naming and all. Maybe it could be interesting to have a look at the web sites of the companies selling similar products... You will see that all of them are using simple layouts: they do not try to impress people with nice HTML tricks; instead they simply list the features of their products and provide some simple documentation. I fully agree at this point. Only that Gimp isn't a commercial product and needs some more comprehensive online documentation, external links, feedback etc.. The Paint Shop Pro Tour looks nice but it only shows what you can do and not how you can do it. -- --=[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=-- --=[ http://www.technoid.f2s.com ]=-- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Michael Spunt schrieb: * The new layout should not break the existing URLs. Many people have If a user requests a page not available on the server, he / she gets redirected to news, 404, we have changed or whatever from where he / she can navigate to the required page and realizes that it's time to update bookmarks. Backward-compatibility isn't cool. :-) Also, a new navigation structure would really force a new file naming and all. a please update your bookmarks page would be the best choice, IMHO. Maybe it could be interesting to have a look at the web sites of the companies selling similar products... You will see that all of them I fully agree at this point. Only that Gimp isn't a commercial product and needs some more comprehensive online documentation, external links, Maybe look at other free software projects websites? For example: The documentation section on http://www.php.net/ is a great example for functionality but perhaps a bit overcrowded. But I like the annotated documentation. Why not have something like that too? Christoph ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] New GIMP Webpage the 2nd
Hi all, I have updated my lists at http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/gimp_org/ It would be great if we could get all that uncertainty out of them. :-)) We must know what we want to have as the result and how to get there. Any comments? Christoph -- http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Raphael made a number of excellent points regarding the site redesign. I'd like to reiterate some of them and add something. |* The new layout should not break the existing URLs. Many people have | bookmarked some pages on www.gimp.org, and many web sites have | direct links to the download pages, to the documentation or to the | mailing lists page. So even if the navigation system is redesigned, | there should still be something available from the same URLs as | today. | |* The design should be fast and clean. It should support all browsers | and should not make excesssive use of nested tables or JavaScript. | The current design of www.gimp.org is OK from that point of view. | But on the other hand, the GUG site is taking too long to render in | Netscape 4 (2-3 seconds of delay for re-displaying any page, because | of the nested tables). They should also work if JavaScript is not available. Links should be links - not JS calls! |* The site should not use cookies unless there is a real need for | them. For example, if the site is built with PHP then it should not | use the session-id cookies or any other user-tracking cookies. This | is not needed and it annoys the users who have configured their | browser to warn them when the server wants to set a cookie. | |* The pages should be easy to bookmark and the URLs should not be too | long. This means that frames are forbidden, and the systems that | generate dynamic contents using horribly long URLs should also be | avoided (see the bad examples from Corel below). I work for a software company whose products handle content management, personalization, etc. [It doesn't run on linux, and it's much more complex and resource intensive than we need, so I haven't pursued trying to get a copy.] I've worked on the GUI, in professional services doing work for clients and in applications. The above points turn out to be absolutely critical if you want a really useful site for the vast majority of users - especially if you care about a wide cross-section of users from techiphobes to technophiles. And while I know this is a mind-boggling concept, we should make sure the pages work even if there is no image delivery. -Miles ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Plug-ins, menus and user interface
Raphael Quinet said... |This would be nice to have, but I think that it would be too |ambitious. What I had in mind is something simpler. Basically, |hiding the menus that are seldom used by unexperienced users. The |toolbox could also be made simpler, but this is not really necessary. If you mean something like Windows 2000, that would be OK. My only concern is that these not morph like W2K menus based on the selections du jour. You get a set to start with, with little arrows to indicate more. Clicking on the arrows would expand the menus and, perhaps, open a popup explaining that they can set expanded menu mode in the preferences. Is this like what you were thinking? |I do not think that the keyboard shortcuts should be changed because a Absolutely. If this were to happen, I would vote to take whoever implemented changing the way the shortscuts worked, and checking *them* into CVS! |What would we gain from that? Except for the coolness factor, not |much... It would even become more difficult for the users to follow a |Gimp tutorial because they would have a hard time finding where each |feature is located if they use a different theme than the one that was |used for the tutorial. Agreed. -Miles ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Hi Christoph! On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:07:46 +0200 Christoph Rauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: update bookmarks. Backward-compatibility isn't cool. :-) Also, a new navigation structure would really force a new file naming and all. a please update your bookmarks page would be the best choice, IMHO. Sure, this would be a more polite way. :-) Maybe look at other free software projects websites? For example: The documentation section on http://www.php.net/ is a great example for functionality but perhaps a bit overcrowded. But I like the annotated documentation. Why not have something like that too? The new php.net design is great! I liked the old one with yellow popup boxes, too, but this one's the best combination of annotated function reference, news and feedback and it's free of bloat. The function search is great. Anyway, the new gimp.org frontpage should have a little freshmeat-like look, ie large news and a secondary bar for links, polls, contests and every other temporary information. Check out my mockup on that. -- --=[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=-- --=[ http://www.technoid.f2s.com ]=-- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Hello Miles! Miles O'Neal schrieb: In terms of layout, the gimp site is head and shoulders above the vast majority of sites out there now. right. I think if we have a redesign there should be a good reason for it. A fersh look is NOT important. Fresh content is far more important. Consistency is a *good* thing. With a well designed site we could use the with our software you are able to do that too-effect and attract more potential users to gimp. That may be worth it, or not? Marketers will tell you that you have to change the site to make it moer appealing,. [...deleted...] I wont go to marketeers. Shes a friend. :) It actually *annoys* people to go to a favorite site and suddenly have to hunt for things. Yeah. I had that experience 3 days ago... [...people love gimps navigation...] I know, I know. Since we're probably going to rewrite the site in something less arcane and more known, now is the ideal time to revamp the look and feel. Let's just make sure it's worth the effort, and we don't lose things - like the top notch menu system, etc. Will add this to my lists. Christoph -- http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
On Wed, 23 May 101 10:23:57 -0500 (CDT), [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Miles O'Neal) said: I know, I know. Since we're probably going to rewrite the site in something less arcane and more known, now is the ideal time to revamp the look and feel. I hate it when sites change things. (My credit card company changes their online customer service system every couple of months and it drives me nuts.) There is nothing at all wrong with the current look and feel, and I see no reason at all to change it. Kelly ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Kelly Martin schrieb: I know, I know. Since we're probably going to rewrite the site in something less arcane and more known, now is the ideal time to revamp the look and feel. I hate it when sites change things. (My credit card company changes their online customer service system every couple of months and it drives me nuts.) There is nothing at all wrong with the current look and feel, and I see no reason at all to change it. Well, thats a different extreme. :-) Many sites have never changed since 1995. Some are changing too frequently. With gimp.org we have sort of the first one (even if its not THAT old). With a redesign in both content and structure we can be more flexible and add more things which are usefull to both new and old users. The current webpage organises all html-pages in the root-direcotry of the server. This is definitely NOT flexible enough. Example: http://www.gimp.org/download/ Result: 404 - not found The site-design neednt be redesigned from scratch. It may be enough to polish it up and remove the Gimp-standard-script-look, which was copied all over the web and today has a bit trashy touch. Definitely not a good representation for the greatest graphic program on earth. :-) Christoph -- http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Christoph Rauch said... | I think if we have a redesign there should be a good reason for it. | A fersh look is NOT important. Fresh content is far more | important. Consistency is a *good* thing. | |With a well designed site we could use the with our software you are able to do |that too-effect and attract more potential users to gimp. That may be worth it, |or not? Depends. I'm certainly open to suggestions. Just don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. | Marketers will tell you that you have to change the site | to make it moer appealing,. [...deleted...] | |I wont go to marketeers. Shes a friend. :) That wasn't to you; it was a more general thing for everyone to keep in mind. I've actually had friends who were marketers. They even listened to me, and I to them. 8^) -Miles ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Nick Lamb schrieb: That's pretty poor. Why would I want to update my bookmarks? You need not. gimp.org will happily redirect you to the page you wanted. Because you are a w1ck3d cool new webmaster? Of course. ;-)) Because you've decided that downloads go in foo/ and screenshots go in baz/ ? Because its easier to maintain. We have more possibilities to guide the user if we use directories. Please explain to me, a simple web user, why I need the URLs for info on the Gimp site to change. If there isn't a compelling reason for the USER then there's no reason at all, is there? go to http://www.gimp.org/download/ Christoph -- http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New GIMP Webpage the 2nd
Hi! On Wed, 23 May 2001 17:13:54 +0200 Christoph Rauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have updated my lists at http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/gimp_org/ It would be great if we could get all that uncertainty out of them. :-)) We must know what we want to have as the result and how to get there. One point I have to criticise: ...* No so important ones: 1. Netscape 2. IE... The web-site should look perfect in every browser, also there are many Windows users and people who use Windows at the office / internet café :-) etc. Any discussions about which browsers must be supported more / less are no good IMHO. Anyway, here are my votes on different topics (see also my mockup): layout: 1. layout - appearance - clean and cool, the current color map is not that bad, consequent theme 2. in-detail design - a set of icons is required to mark special news, sections... see above 3. a logo is nice, should contain Wilber 4. navigation structure should be changed (see my mockup) content: 1. all news in the Gimp / general image processing world (new algorithms, contests...) 2. tutorials, articles, interviews (ok, this is a little portal-style but why searching the net for hours to find stuff you need!?) 3. (maybe) integrate registry.gimp.org and add screenshots / examples as far as posible 4. dynamic list of mirrors, RPM / DEB locations 5. links to external resources (e.g. linuxgraphic.org, gtk.org, linuxartist.org - is it alive, btw?) 6. mailinglist archives 7. cvs usage / getting involved / compilation / requirements / Windows LZW quirks cms: 1. dynamic - php/*sql - easy to code, offers many possibilities, we use it at the GUG and it's excellent for those purposes IMHO editing: 1. people should get an editor's account to add news, articles etc. via web-interface (perhaps slashdot-like commenting, get ready for AC, fp and ge.cx ;-)) Just my 0.02 Euro. -- --=[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=-- --=[ http://www.technoid.f2s.com ]=-- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
On Wed, 23 May 2001 18:21:16 +0200, Christoph Rauch [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Many sites have never changed since 1995. Some are changing too frequently. With gimp.org we have sort of the first one (even if its not THAT old). With a redesign in both content and structure we can be more flexible and add more things which are usefull to both new and old users. The current webpage organises all html-pages in the root-direcotry of the server. This is definitely NOT flexible enough. Example: http://www.gimp.org/download/ Result: 404 - not found That's not a look and feel issue, it's just a broken link problem that has nothing to do with look and feel. The site-design neednt be redesigned from scratch. It may be enough to polish it up and remove the Gimp-standard-script-look, which was copied all over the web and today has a bit trashy touch. Definitely not a good representation for the greatest graphic program on earth. :-) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Kelly ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Kelly Martin said... |Example: http://www.gimp.org/download/ Result: 404 - not found | |That's not a look and feel issue, it's just a broken link problem |that has nothing to do with look and feel. While it's a tangential LNF issue, it *is* an LNF issue. A plain old page not found error is fine when the web is young and your audience is 12 people in your department and you're developing web servers and such. In the real world, it's a bad idea. Of course, it's even worse when the page not found page has 12 nested tables and 37 graphics on it and takes a week to load, as I have seen on some of the commercial webspace servers... -Miles ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Hi Nick! On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:47:14 +0100 Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: update bookmarks. Backward-compatibility isn't cool. :-) Also, a new navigation structure would really force a new file naming and all. That's pretty poor. Why would I want to update my bookmarks? Because you are a w1ck3d cool new webmaster? Because you've decided that downloads go in foo/ and screenshots go in baz/ ? Why should I update to Mozilla 0.9 or use UNIX? The Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 shipped with my Windows 3.1x is enough for my needs. ;-) The Gimp world emerges, information changes, the page becomes obsolete and hard to maintain. Backward compatibility isn't worth that. Also, noone wants to be a w1ck3d cool webmaster. A great software deserves a great page update time up to time and keeping the old crap won't help much. Maybe you can tell us how to do it without breaking backward compatibility, though. -- --=[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=-- --=[ http://www.technoid.f2s.com ]=-- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Raphael Quinet schrieb: That's pretty poor. Why would I want to update my bookmarks? You need not. gimp.org will happily redirect you to the page you wanted. Hmmm... This is better than nothing, but if would be nice if there could be some real pages (not redirects) at the following URLs, to which a number of other web sites (or user bookmarks) are pointing: downloads.html = /download/ and so on? different url, but same content. does that confuse the users? For the deeper nested pages like http://www.gimp.org/the_gimp_system_reqs.html which are not as often linked I would recommend a redirect. Because its easier to maintain. We have more possibilities to guide the user if we use directories. Yes. As long as there are not too many levels (deep hierarchy), this should be OK. But it would be nice if the most frequently visited pages could have a very short URL, like the ones listed above. Please explain to me, a simple web user, why I need the URLs for info on the Gimp site to change. If there isn't a compelling reason for the USER then there's no reason at all, is there? go to http://www.gimp.org/download/ OK, that directory does not exist and you get a 404 error (which could be replaced by a redirect to the correct page). But where did you find a link to it? The only links that I found are pointing to the page (not directory): http://www.gimp.org/download.html a user could by chance enter that url. wouldn't it be nice to guess what he wanted and present him with the page, or with a list of possible pages instead of a 404? Anyway, that did not answer Nick's question: why would the users have to change their bookmarks? Its up to the user what he does. Perhaps i'm a bit too acustomed to update your bookmarks pages We could of course link all the old pages to the new pages, so he wouldnt even notice. Or even redirect him without explaining, so he would end up on a different page then he entered. What would be better? I dont know. Example: Go to http://www.amazon.com/books/ and see where you are after page-load. Christoph -- http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Christoph Rauch wrote: [...] The site-design neednt be redesigned from scratch. It may be enough to polish it up and remove the Gimp-standard-script-look, which was copied all over the web and today has a bit trashy touch. Definitely not a good representation for the greatest graphic program on earth. :-) Well, if it has been copied all over the web, this is probably a good sign... Anyway, I agree that the look could be improved and the titles could be a bit more impressive (but they should still use a common color palette and they should not be too heavy or too distracting). But it is very important to have most of the graphics (titles, etc.) done with a script that is included in the standard Gimp distribution so that every Gimp user can make the same things with only a couple of mouse clicks. Contrary to some companies that have to protect their image, we do not want to prevent people from copying the look and feel of the gimp.org web site. We want the Gimp users to recognize immediately that the graphics were done with one of the standard scripts so that they know that they can do the same if they want to. I would like to hear things like: Hey, cool, this Gimp program works well... I can do the same graphics as they have on their web site and it is really easy to do with the built-in scripts. If it is good enough for them, then the Gimp must be good enough for me. Of course, a standard script does not mean an old one. This can be done by a new script, as long as it becomes part of the standard distribution in version 1.2.2 or 1.4.0. By the way, this will have to be done in Script-Fu and not Perl-Fu because the script should run in the Windows version of the Gimp (which is probably the version that is used by the majority of new users nowadays). -Raphael ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Raphael Quinet schrieb: The site-design neednt be redesigned from scratch. It may be enough to polish it up and remove the Gimp-standard-script-look, which was copied all over the web and today has a bit trashy touch. Definitely not a good representation for the greatest graphic program on earth. :-) Well, if it has been copied all over the web, this is probably a good sign... Well, of course, but it wears off... :-) Christoph -- http://home.bn-paf.de/smokey/ ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Raphael Quinet said... |But it is very important to have most of the graphics (titles, etc.) |done with a script that is included in the standard Gimp distribution |so that every Gimp user can make the same things with only a couple of |mouse clicks. Contrary to some companies that have to protect their |image, we do not want to prevent people from copying the look and feel |of the gimp.org web site. We want the Gimp users to recognize |immediately that the graphics were done with one of the standard |scripts so that they know that they can do the same if they want to. This will also help with the branding cncept. If we have eppole using the look and feel all over the place, with GIMP logos, it will be a big win. That's one thing I agree with the marketers on! ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] The GIMP Webpage
Whether you like it or not, gimp has been ported to mac and windoze. All gimp info should be accessible and helpful for all. And point to os specific help when needed. And yes, even be viewable with internet explorer. (My mom uses that, sorry). Michael Spunt wrote: Hi Nick! On Wed, 23 May 2001 16:47:14 +0100 Nick Lamb [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: update bookmarks. Backward-compatibility isn't cool. :-) Also, a new navigation structure would really force a new file naming and all. That's pretty poor. Why would I want to update my bookmarks? Because you are a w1ck3d cool new webmaster? Because you've decided that downloads go in foo/ and screenshots go in baz/ ? Why should I update to Mozilla 0.9 or use UNIX? The Microsoft Internet Explorer 3.0 shipped with my Windows 3.1x is enough for my needs. ;-) The Gimp world emerges, information changes, the page becomes obsolete and hard to maintain. Backward compatibility isn't worth that. Also, noone wants to be a w1ck3d cool webmaster. A great software deserves a great page update time up to time and keeping the old crap won't help much. Maybe you can tell us how to do it without breaking backward compatibility, though. -- --=[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]=-- --=[ http://www.technoid.f2s.com ]=-- ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Script-fu and Re: The GIMP Webpage
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-05-23 at 1023.57 -0500): Marketers will tell you that you have to change the site Sorry, could not resist, joke ahead: A shepher is in the plains, just watching his sheeps, and an all terrain vehicle appears from nowhere. A guy with a nice suit and a laptop jumps to ground, and asks the shepherd: - If I tell you how many sheeps do you have, would you give me one? - Uummm, OK. The suit guy starts to do some computing, requests extra data via mobile phone, process satellite photos and after an hour of activity says: - You have 1457. - Yes! Choose a sheep. The guy gets one, and the shepher asks with a funny face: - If I tell you what is your job, do you give me it back? - Ooh, why not. - You are a consultor. - How do you know? - You appeared even if I have not called you, you told me a thing I already know... and you have choosen my dog. ;] It can be applied to other professions, consulting was just the one at hand, but I guess it shows clearly the modern trend of doing things just cos someone says it, not cos they are needed. We can give some kicks to the site design, sure, but I would preffer to give some kicks to the content, so it is useful and updated. What is more, a plain looking site, while not appealing at first visit, would be visited again if people see it is useful (looks plain, but it has all the info I was searching, oooh! no more time wasted browsing!). I guess that is the reason people like Google: it works and does not look overworked. BTW, is there a Script-fu coding style? I have an idea in mind: clean scripts a bit, and publish some rules, in the same way Gimp C code has some rules (published?). GSR ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] New GIMP Webpage the 2nd
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Christoph Rauch ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: The current page displayed in lynx is suboptimal. Well, at least it is not too bad. It is still looking better in lynx than http://gug.sunsite.dk/ and some other gimp-related pages. ;-) [...skipped nice HTML trick...] PHP has a advantage over passive html-pages. You can react on the user immediately. Think of: You go to gimp.org in germany and see german content. Same thing in GB or the US and you see it in english. PHP can be made to react on the browsers language preferences. But perhaps we could configure Apache to do it too? Yes, this is possible with content negotiation. And it is better, IMHO. Apache allows you to store several versions of the page in different languages, and it will serve the most appropriate one according to the user's language preferences. This approach also has the advantage that if you want to get one page in a different language than the one specified in your preferences, you simply have to modify the URL (e.g. index.fr.html instead of index.html) without having to reconfigure your browser for a single page. As I mentioned in a previous message, static pages (generated once, not at every request) can be cached, which is not always possible for dynamic pages and definitely not possible if cookies are used. Static pages are good for the user's browser as well as for large caching proxies that speed up the downloads for many users. I am behind a proxy that is used by several thousand users, so I can see the difference... -Raphael P.S.: This has been surprisingly active discussion... Unfortunately, I will probably be away from the 'net in the next 4 days, so do not be surprised if you do not see more replies from me. I hope that the other topics that were discussed before this web site thread started will not be lost in the noise... Bye! ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: The GIMP Webpage
Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero said... | They should also work if JavaScript is not available. Links | should be links - not JS calls! | |JS should be avoided, some browsers do not support it, some people |just turn it off to avoid the pain, links are links and opening |windows as the html coders want is not what i would could say nice, |mainly cos they can not cover all font types, screen layouts, etc |etc. So please, can anybody show me a JS that is really useful (aka no |other way to do it) and works always? I don't mind JS as an add-on. But it should be only that - an add-on. And it needs to be clean, portable JS that won't crash old browsers. | |* The pages should be easy to bookmark and the URLs should not be too | | long. This means that frames are forbidden, and the systems that | | generate dynamic contents using horribly long URLs should also be | | avoided (see the bad examples from Corel below). I should have interjected here that frames aren't necessarily forbidden, but they do take extra effort to do right. And you have to provide for people who don't have them. |Yes, cos if I post an URL to a friend and it says page.php?id=5 it |says nothing, when anim_tut.php says a lot more. Yes, I know, I can |describe the link to my friend, but I can also post the wrong one, or |just send my friend to a garbage page (you know, some people are in |joke mode always), so if the links says something, better. Agreed. Ideally, both should work. Not familiar with PHP delivery, tho, so I don't know if that works. And frankly, I'm all for static pages as much as possible. Use the extras only when you *need* to. Otherwise, again. extra design time up front saves wear and tear. I recently redid a bunch of scripts I have for a site to completely separate the page definition from the generated content. Even with basic perl CGIs you can do this. | And while I know this is a mind-boggling concept, we should | make sure the pages work even if there is no image delivery. | |Guess how some people searching a given page browse: without images. |Once you have found it, and if images are needed, you load them. And |sometimes not at all, searching download places with wget and text |browser when ssh to another machine is the last case I have meet (and |yes, it was faster than local, go tell router configs). Ayup. And there are folks who use text browsers - even to read about graphics programs! -Miles ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Script-fu and Re: The GIMP Webpage
On Wed, 23 May 2001, Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero wrote: [...skipped nice joke...] BTW, is there a Script-fu coding style? I have an idea in mind: clean scripts a bit, and publish some rules, in the same way Gimp C code has some rules (published?). As far as I know, there is no Script-Fu coding style described anywhere. I tried to find some references when I modified many of the logo scripts in order to add support for Alpha to Logo, but I did not find anything. I wanted to clean up all scripts, but I did not do it because I did not know what style to follow. The C code is following more or less the GNU Coding Standards. There is an online version available here: http://www.gnu.org/prep/standards_toc.html Look for the chapter Formatting Your Source Code. The other chapters are interesting too. The Gimp code follows this standard, with some small modifications (e.g., the declaration of a function lists its arguments on separate lines and they are aligned). -Raphael ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
[Gimp-developer] Re: Script-fu
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (2001-05-23 at 2056.32 +0200): As far as I know, there is no Script-Fu coding style described anywhere. I tried to find some references when I modified many of the logo scripts in order to add support for Alpha to Logo, but I did not find anything. I wanted to clean up all scripts, but I did not do it because I did not know what style to follow. I would like to suggest: - use spaces, not tabs. - for comments use (left, heading, optional), ;;; (left), ;; (code level) and ; (right). - use headers in comments, so you give some info, not just the code. - files start with ;;; filename.scm --- description. - files end with ;;; filename.scm ends here. - put ) at the end of something, not in a new line. - and ( just before the text, not in the line above. - if the script launchs a dialog, write ... in the path. Mainly, Emacs Lisp rules. We can read them fully and use what we think that applies, writing a new doc for Gimp site (and start patching as time allows). TOC http://www.gnu.org/manual/elisp-manual-20-2.5/html_node/elisp_toc.html Tips and Conventions http://www.gnu.org/manual/elisp-manual-20-2.5/html_node/elisp_652.html I have not checked all the Gimp scripts, but I know some follow the rules quite good, and others not at all (not even just what you think about lisp languajes). GSR ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
