getdeb-collaboration team mailing list archive

[Joao Pinto <joao.pinto@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Brett,
thanks for your long time commitment an patience.

Abour your design, it looks more like a portal to the GetDeb project from a
general perspective, not from an end users perspective. Our target audience
are users searching for software, a few will care about collaborating (wiki)
or about we are doing (blog).
I don't think is a good idea to have prominent links to such resources at
this time, they have a very low activity and they are not visually
integrated with the main site.

I think our current site layout is ok and thanks to you and all the others
that helped on the last days we have fixed most of the major issues with the
design.

About the categories: (maybe we should call it "Filters" )
   * Alphabetical -> I agree
   * Categorical -> We have
   * Featured -> I would prefer to replace this with something like "Extra",
app not available on the repositories
   * License Type -> Too low interest to be available as main filter
   * Most Popular -> We need the download counts system implemented
   * Most Recent  -> This is the default view
   * New Releases -> The "Extra" is more interesting, people don't care
about new releases compared to their current version, that is a re gular
updated that you can find in "Most Recent".

In order to improve the filters we should:
a) Add those filters to the "Filter By" combo (we would keep the current
categories+Alphabetical+Most Popular+Better Rated+Extra)
a) Add a title/tabel that clearly describes the filter criteria, eg:
Alphabetical: Applications sorted by alphabetical order
Categorical: Sound & Video applications sorted by update date
Extra: Packages not available from the official repositories
Most Popular: Applications sorted by downloads
Better Rated: Applications sorted by rating
NOTE: The Alphabetical filter is a special case for which we should have the
nr of apps per page unlimited, and replace the page numbers index with the
letters.

The only option that could be implemented right now is the "Alphabetical",
the others depend on additional data and features that are not implemented
yet.

Best regards

On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 9:43 PM, Brett Alton <brett.jr.alton@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> So as some of you may or may not know, I applied to re-work the design
> of getdeb.net sometime in 2008/08 and it wasn't until 2008/10 that I
> had something worth showing (I was interfacing with Vadim P. at this
> time).
>
> I can't remember why it took me so long to complete the design or why
> the design was never completed, but I assume it was because of me
> becoming too busy with my contracting.
>
> I've attached the design I had in October of last year to point out a
> couple things.
>
> Firstly, this is not a complete design. There are also many changes
> I'd make to it today - probably resulting in a redesign (e.g. the
> flags that represent languages, which we agreed was a bad idea).
> Secondly, no mentioning the random floural design in the background.
> Just let it be, lol.
>
> I wanted to point out, however, my ideas for categories:
>
>    *  Alphabetical
>    * Categorical
>    * Featured
>    * License Type
>    * Most Popular
>    * Most Recent
>    * New Releases
>
> Right now, we just have Categorial
> (http://getdeb.net/updates/category/Programming etc.) and Most Recent
> (http://getdeb.net/updates), but what does everyone think about
>
>  * Featured (maybe you guys are proud of some packages that no one has
> in PPAs or that Ubuntu doesnt have even out-of-date packages for),
>  * License Type (not really sure how popular that'd be, but some free
> software zealots might like it),
>  * Most Popular (there was a daily most popular on the last site, but
> I'd really like to see the most downloaded programs over the whole
> support of 9.04 or 9.10 and not be software version specific (e.g. 2.2
> is more popular or has been downloaded more often than 2.1)... that
> shouldn't matter. Downloads towards version 2.2 or 2.1 of a program
> should go towards the total for that program)
>
> I'm not sure what the difference is between Most Recent and New
> Releases is.. maybe brand-new packages that have never had a previous
> version on Get/PlayDeb?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~getdeb-collaboration<https://launchpad.net/%7Egetdeb-collaboration>
> Post to     : getdeb-collaboration@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~getdeb-collaboration<https://launchpad.net/%7Egetdeb-collaboration>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>


-- 
João Luís Marques Pinto
GetDeb Team Leader
http://www.getdeb.net
http://blog.getdeb.net