Hi all,
Looks as if in the thread 'A simpler download page' work on that is
reflected.
- For the 3.5.0 , some simple words have been added to our current page:
- Our latest, feature rich version
- Previous version.
- Do we want to show a little text which version to choose ?
Should be
Cor Nouws wrote:
- Then the 3.3- versions. What is the url (if any) of the archives,
that we can put in the list at the bottom of the page?
If we still link it from the pages, I'd suggest keeping it on the
mirrors, maybe even at its current location.
Cheers,
-- Thorsten
--
Unsubscribe
Hi all,
This thread is because:
- the download page is nominated for improvement some time already;
- the mockups and wording at the wiki (from June/July last year)
represent the idea to hide the new version (currently 3.5.0) and use the
old as 'stable'
- we want to be 3.5.0 to be strongly
Hi Christoph,
Christoph Noack wrote (11-02-12 23:54)
Mmh, maybe I'm blind, but wasn't the idea of having a default version,
and thus a download page for one version only, the solution for to
provide one button to the version we want to download?
Yes, but we may also face a situation where
Hi Drew,
drew wrote (12-02-12 00:17)
Well I wrote the email first thing this morning and I am still, in
general, behind the concept, however, after reading everything on list
today and spending most of the day running 3.4.5 and 3.5.0 _and_ then
Indeed a good thing to do.
reading your post,
Hi all,
Recently we discussed the need to improve the download page (on the
marketing list).
Christoph was so kind to help us to find again the existing wiki page on
the subject with the mockups, Download page whiteboard page:
Cor Nouws wrote (11-02-12 10:44)
Can this be done?
For in case the new download page may not be there before the 3.5.0 is
out (few days..), I've added a few words about latest/previous version
to the download page.
When the 3.5.0 is there, I suggest:
at the top (3.5.0)
This is the Our
On 2/11/12 10:55 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
When the 3.5.0 is there, I suggest:
at the top (3.5.0)
This is the Our latest, feature rich version,
has a bit more glitches
I would write this is our latest and greatest, feature rich version
below (3.4.5)
for conservative use, without the
On 11-02-2012 10:44, Cor Nouws wrote:
I think we must distinct between three situations/phases
1. 3.5.x must be promoted but with care
(might be 3.5.0, maybe 3.5.1 or might even be skipped)
2. 3.5.x considered good enough
for non-expert installation and use
(might be 3.5.0, maybe 3.5.1)
3.
2012/2/11 Cor Nouws oo...@nouenoff.nl
Cor Nouws wrote (11-02-12 10:44)
Can this be done?
For in case the new download page may not be there before the 3.5.0 is out
(few days..), I've added a few words about latest/previous version to the
download page.
When the 3.5.0 is there, I
Hi Drew, all,
drew wrote (11-02-12 14:39)
- Basically is answered with a.: the version can be installed by all,
without trouble and we show a clear link leading to information.
I would strongly argue in the reverse.
Ah, sad. I had hoped (dreamed prolly) that with my idea we had found
Hi Anders,
Anders Holbøll wrote (11-02-12 21:24)
I believe that 3.5.0 should be advertised as the default recommended
version. If it isn't ready for that, I would assume that the developers
had put out another release candidate!
I guess the developers think it's ready for the release.
Italo Vignoli wrote (11-02-12 11:44)
On 2/11/12 10:55 AM, Cor Nouws wrote:
When the 3.5.0 is there, I suggest:
I would write this is our latest and greatest, feature rich version
Agree.
below (3.4.5)
I would write for conservative users, thoroughly tested, without the
latest features
Hi Luc, *,
Luc Castermans wrote (11-02-12 20:26)
Nice pictures on the white board! Nevertheless I think optically we should
provide one button to the version we want to download at that moment in
time.
Thanks!
Alas I fail to see how to predict what kind of user is running the
browser, which
Hi Olav,
Olav Dahlum wrote (11-02-12 22:07)
Scaring, insulting, and driving away customers/users won't promote or sell
LibreOffice. Instead, highlight the features in the various versions.
Meaning, market 3.5 for what it is; a faster generation etc etc, and 3.4 as
something more of a LTS
Le 2012-02-11 16:56, Cor Nouws a écrit :
Hi Olav,
Olav Dahlum wrote (11-02-12 22:07)
Scaring, insulting, and driving away customers/users won't promote or
sell
LibreOffice. Instead, highlight the features in the various versions.
Meaning, market 3.5 for what it is; a faster generation etc
Hi Cor, hi Luc, all!
Great to see the recent activity concerning that topic :-)
Am Samstag, den 11.02.2012, 22:51 +0100 schrieb Cor Nouws:
Hi Luc, *,
Luc Castermans wrote (11-02-12 20:26)
Nice pictures on the white board! Nevertheless I think optically we should
provide one button to
HI Drew et al
Le 2012-02-11 08:39, drew a écrit :
I would strongly argue in the reverse.
They likely use less of the application and therefore:
- are least likely to benefit from the new features
- least likely to appreciate the value of new features they find
- least able to deal with any
On 11/02/12 22:56, Cor Nouws wrote:
Hi Olav,
Olav Dahlum wrote (11-02-12 22:07)
Scaring, insulting, and driving away customers/users won't promote or
sell
LibreOffice. Instead, highlight the features in the various versions.
Meaning, market 3.5 for what it is; a faster generation etc etc,
On 11/02/12 23:46, Marc Paré wrote:
Le 2012-02-11 16:56, Cor Nouws a écrit :
Hi Olav,
Olav Dahlum wrote (11-02-12 22:07)
Scaring, insulting, and driving away customers/users won't promote or
sell
LibreOffice. Instead, highlight the features in the various versions.
Meaning, market 3.5 for
Apologies, I did not realize what was happening on the download page.
Sorry for jumping in so late.
On 2/11/12 11:54 PM, Christoph Noack wrote:
Looking at the new proposals at [1], the major difference (I seem to be
able to spot) is the decision to present LibO 3.5.0 Early Adopters as
the
On 12/02/12 00:34, Italo Vignoli wrote:
Apologies, I did not realize what was happening on the download page.
Sorry for jumping in so late.
On 2/11/12 11:54 PM, Christoph Noack wrote:
Looking at the new proposals at [1], the major difference (I seem to be
able to spot) is the decision to
22 matches
Mail list logo
