menu structure

About the download stuff. I think it could be very nice to use O.S.
detection in the homepage download button, just as in Mozilla website
(and other sites too).
The download section wouldn't be altered (and a link to that section
could be offered along the direct download button, as "other downloads"
, but we would have a more direct download link, wich would be welcome
by the newcomers, IMO.

Now the ugly part: I don't have idea on how it could be made, so I can
provide only the feature suggestion, but not further help. :(

Any thoughts?

Guillermo Espertino wrote:
> About the download stuff. I think it could be very nice to use O.S.
> detection in the homepage download button, just as in Mozilla website
> (and other sites too).

Attached is a patch that will do this. It requires the following server
environment variables to be set:


BrowserMatchNoCase mac platform=macintosh
BrowserMatchNoCase win platform=windows

I didn't bother including linux since that option would probably want the
default href anyway.

Regards,
David

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 17:50:10 +0000, David Marrs <David.Marrs@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> Guillermo Espertino wrote:
> > About the download stuff. I think it could be very nice to use O.S.
> > detection in the homepage download button, just as in Mozilla website
> > (and other sites too).
>
> Attached is a patch that will do this. It requires the following server
> environment variables to be set: [...]

Unfortunately, this patch is not a good idea because it does the OS
detection on the server side. This will not work. There is a good
reason why the automatic download buttons used by Mozilla and other
sites do the OS detection using client-side Javascript code: anything
done on the server side may be cached by proxies.

Many Internet service providers (e.g., AOL), schools, universities and
companies have optional or mandatory proxies shared by all their users.
If you attempt to change the page depending on the client OS as
detected by the server, you will quickly run into problems because some
users will get a cached copy of the page offering them the wrong
version.

So the only good solution is to put a bit of optional Javascript in the
page. The examples provided by Mozilla are relatively simple and can
be adapted to www.gimp.org easily. There is also a <noscript> part in
order to support those who block Javascript.

Note that the whole point of these download buttons offered by Mozilla
and other sites is to provide a one-click download, or at most two
clicks if there is an intermediate page with sufficiently important
information that should be read by the user before downloading the
installer. This means that the download button should link directly to
the downloadable file, or link to a page that contains a direct link to
that file.

I don't think that the pages that we have now would qualify for this
direct download. Currently, downloading the Windows installer (probably
the main target for this download button) requires 4 to 5 clicks: one to
get our "/windows/" page, one to go to gimp-win.sourceforge.net, one to
go to gimp-win.sourceforge.net/stable.html, one get the file (which may
require an additional click to select a mirror site). This assumes that
the future installer would also contain GTK+ and that the user does not
want to install the help files. Otherwise, you can add another dozen
clicks, which is far from the "one-click" goal of the download button.
The download button should really be a direct link to the file, without
having to go through the intermediate pages.

-Raphaël

Raphaël Quinet wrote:
> Unfortunately, this patch is not a good idea because it does the OS
> detection on the server side. This will not work. There is a good
> reason why the automatic download buttons used by Mozilla and other
> sites do the OS detection using client-side Javascript code: anything
> done on the server side may be cached by proxies.
>
This is what I like about these sorts of projects: you learn stuff. :) I'd not
considered the proxy issue. I'll have another go using javascript.

> The download button should really be a direct link to the file, without
> having to go through the intermediate pages.
I hear you. If all goes well with 2.4's all-in-one installer then this won't be
an issue. Otherwise we can redesign or remove the feature at a later date. For
now I think the current link is a good compromise.

Thanks for the feedback.

Davidm

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 20:26 +0100, David Marrs wrote:

> > The download button should really be a direct link to the file, without
> > having to go through the intermediate pages.
> I hear you. If all goes well with 2.4's all-in-one installer then this won't be
> an issue. Otherwise we can redesign or remove the feature at a later date. For
> now I think the current link is a good compromise.

Well, so far we explicitely did not want to provide a one-click binary
installation from www.gimp.org. The rule is that the GIMP team only
provides the source code. Precompiled binaries are left to other parties
and so is their distribution. If this is supposed to be changed, then it
should be discussed beforehand. And it probably needs to be discussed in
a wider audience than this list. I suggest you bring this up on the
gimp-developer list.


Sven

On Wed, 28 Mar 2007 22:53:29 +0200, Sven Neumann <sven@gimp.org> wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-03-28 at 20:26 +0100, David Marrs wrote:
> > > The download button should really be a direct link to the file, without
> > > having to go through the intermediate pages.
> > I hear you. If all goes well with 2.4's all-in-one installer then this won't be
> > an issue. Otherwise we can redesign or remove the feature at a later date. For
> > now I think the current link is a good compromise.
>

Note that if you compare with Mozilla, you will see that the download
button is only visible when a direct link to the installer can be
provided. For the platforms that have no pre-compiled package, the
download button is replaced by a simple link (no button) where users
can download the source code or follow links to other sites providing
unofficial packages ("contributed builds").

So the download button should only appear if we can provide a direct
link to the pre-compiled package, not if we point users to the source
code.

> Well, so far we explicitely did not want to provide a one-click binary
> installation from www.gimp.org. The rule is that the GIMP team only
> provides the source code. Precompiled binaries are left to other parties
> and so is their distribution. If this is supposed to be changed, then it
> should be discussed beforehand. And it probably needs to be discussed in
> a wider audience than this list. I suggest you bring this up on the
> gimp-developer list.

Yes, let's discuss that on the gimp-developer list. Because if we do
not want to provide one-click binary installation, then we should not
have a download button on the home page.

-Raphaël

I think that Ubuntu's tangerine icons (a tango derivative, if I'm not
wrong) would match with the new website's look and feel.
I propose to use them, for instance, in the news part replacing that old
fashined gnome folder icons.

I'm wondering if those icons are copyrighted or have any license
restriction. Anyone knows if they do?

On Fri, 2007-03-23 at 16:54 -0300, Guillermo Espertino wrote:
> I think that Ubuntu's tangerine icons (a tango derivative, if I'm not
> wrong) would match with the new website's look and feel.
> I propose to use them, for instance, in the news part replacing that old
> fashined gnome folder icons.

The news part of the website is just a placeholder, I don't think a
folder graphic is actually going to be part of news items.

> I'm wondering if those icons are copyrighted or have any license
> restriction. Anyone knows if they do?

They are Creative COmmons Share Alike 2.0.

cheers

Hi GIMPsters.

While I was going to aim for the looks only, after reading some of the
comments on structure on this list, I tried to simplify the menu
structure as well.

The verbose menu listing that Blender[1] uses, at the bottom of each
page, is a very neat placement. You find yourself want to navigate to
another page after you finished reading the current one.

The main menu on the right only includes the most useful items, but I
added links to external sites there. The GIMP-related site inter-links
should be prominently placed.

The feature page linked to the release notes. I think we need a separate
feature page that shows GIMP in typical scenarios. Not a boring feature
rundown, but nicely illustrated, real world examples on how you can fix
your photos, create web buttons etc.

http://gimp-web.jimmac.net/

Thoughts?

[1] http://blender.org

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 12:59:04AM +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:
> Hi GIMPsters.
>
> http://gimp-web.jimmac.net/
>
> Thoughts?
>
As I said before, i18n is missing and this is a _real_ missing IMHO.

bye

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 11:58 +0100, Marco Ciampa wrote:

> As I said before, i18n is missing and this is a _real_ missing IMHO.

Marco, it should be clear to everyone that it doesn't make sense to even
consider i18n until the redesign is pretty much done. When the new
structure and content is in place, a framework for localisation can be
added. Unless that has happened, it doesn't make sense to work on
translations. Perhaps you can use the time to develop a framework for
i18n and propose it to this list?


Sven

On Wed, Mar 21, 2007 at 09:30:55PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 11:58 +0100, Marco Ciampa wrote:
>
> > As I said before, i18n is missing and this is a _real_ missing IMHO.
>
> Marco, it should be clear to everyone that it doesn't make sense to even
> consider i18n until the redesign is pretty much done. When the new
> structure and content is in place, a framework for localisation can be
> added. Unless that has happened, it doesn't make sense to work on
> translations. Perhaps you can use the time to develop a framework for
> i18n and propose it to this list?

Sorry for being too concise. i18n means internationalization, not
translation. I simply would like to suggest to consider the i18n problem
_before_ going too deep in the details of the site.

I do not know how is developed the site, now I'm currently checking out the
gimp-web and gimp-web-devel repository. I'll try to be useful since I'm not
a programmer and, of course, I'll be your italian web traslator.

Cheers

Hi,

On Wed, 2007-03-21 at 00:59 +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote:

> While I was going to aim for the looks only, after reading some of the
> comments on structure on this list, I tried to simplify the menu
> structure as well.
>
> The verbose menu listing that Blender[1] uses, at the bottom of each
> page, is a very neat placement. You find yourself want to navigate to
> another page after you finished reading the current one.

I like it a lot. The current menu is overloaded. That is not only my
opinion but summarizes the feedback that I received on the current
website.


Sven

Moin,

the new site is getting better and better :-)

It would be nice if the link to http://next.gimp.org/donating/ on the
front page could become more prominent again. Currently it is hard to
locate at the bottom of the page. I know that this is the unavoidable
side-effect of a more concise main menu. But perhaps we can find a way
to keep the menu as short as it is but still have a prominent link to
the donations page?


Sven

Jakub Steiner wrote:
>
> Thoughts?
>
A definite improvement. Another advantage of repeating the menu along the bottom
is that users don't have to scroll up. I also think there's a strong case for
adding javascript enabled secondary menus to the left of the main menu.

I still think "About" is a more accurate description of the linked page than
"History".

Davidm

Things seem to be coming along nicely on the redesign so far. Good
goals seem to be in place such as being easy novices for to navigate
while being efficient for for advanced users. Here's a suggestion to
to help meet those goals in an overlooked area.

I'm constantly introducing my students to GIMP. Many have never used
anything but Windows. The easier we can make it for them to download
and install it on their platform, the more likely it will be form them
to begin the migration path to using open software instead of
proprietary software.

The path to obtain the binary installer for Windows is currently at
least four clicks away from the main GIMP page. Even after finding the
installer, three components need to be downloaded and installed
separately in order to get GIMP to work and have help. Perhaps we
could make it more direct, along with the simplest possible
instructions just one click away under Windows Download.

Ideally, Jernej's installers would be combined to install all three
components when needed, and to be placed right there as a single
package. But since I don't think he wants to make a combined
installer, three links should be there as part of a simplified
instructions document.

The other links to more advanced resources that Tor and Jernej provide
should be at the bottom of the page for those who need to be exposed
to the guts. It's just too easy for those artists that neither have
nor desire much technical background to become overwhelmed by
everything needed to get started.

I hope this helps.


_________________________

Hi,

On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 23:27 +0000, shaneyfelt@juno.com wrote:

> Ideally, Jernej's installers would be combined to install all three
> components when needed, and to be placed right there as a single
> package. But since I don't think he wants to make a combined
> installer, three links should be there as part of a simplified
> instructions document.

AFAIK, the 2.4 installer will be an all-in-one installer. At least GTK+
and GIMP will be in a single package. I am not sure about the user
manual. It probably makes sense to keep it separate as it has a
different release cycle and the package is quite large.


Sven

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:50:18AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 23:27 +0000, shaneyfelt@juno.com wrote:
>
> > Ideally, Jernej's installers would be combined to install all three
> > components when needed, and to be placed right there as a single
> > package. But since I don't think he wants to make a combined
> > installer, three links should be there as part of a simplified
> > instructions document.
>
> AFAIK, the 2.4 installer will be an all-in-one installer. At least GTK+
> and GIMP will be in a single package. I am not sure about the user
> manual. It probably makes sense to keep it separate as it has a
> different release cycle and the package is quite large.
I agree but I think that perhaps a more precise suggestion could be made,
for exaple the installer, if it doesn't find the gtk package, it could
suggest to download the correct (2.6 or 2.8 depending on the platform it
runs on) version with a _nationalized_ message.

(of course is a 2 euro cents suggestion from a translator...)

bye

Le vendredi 23 mars 2007 12:32, Marco Ciampa a écrit :
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:50:18AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, 2007-03-22 at 23:27 +0000, shaneyfelt@juno.com wrote:
> > > Ideally, Jernej's installers would be combined to install all three
> > > components when needed, and to be placed right there as a single
> > > package. But since I don't think he wants to make a combined
> > > installer, three links should be there as part of a simplified
> > > instructions document.
> >
> > AFAIK, the 2.4 installer will be an all-in-one installer. At least GTK+
> > and GIMP will be in a single package. I am not sure about the user
> > manual. It probably makes sense to keep it separate as it has a
> > different release cycle and the package is quite large.
>
> I agree but I think that perhaps a more precise suggestion could be made,
> for exaple the installer, if it doesn't find the gtk package, it could
> suggest to download the correct (2.6 or 2.8 depending on the platform it
> runs on) version with a _nationalized_ message.
>
> (of course is a 2 euro cents suggestion from a translator...)
>

Just do it like for Azureus download page, we need to highlight cleary the
steps:
Step 1: download GTK
Step 2: downl oad Gimp

It is pretty obvious in this way, take a look:
http://azureus.sourceforge.net/download.php

my 0.2€

Hi,

guys, do you read me? I said that the 2.4 installer will contain both
GTK+ and GIMP in a single package.


Sven

On Fri, Mar 23, 2007 at 07:31:07PM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> guys, do you read me? I said that the 2.4 installer will contain both
> GTK+ and GIMP in a single package.
>
Sorry, I supposed that it was just a suggestion!

Great, another improvement in respect to the 2.2 series... :-)