launchpad-dev team mailing list archive

[Julian Edwards <julian.edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

On Friday 07 August 2009 10:27:04 Jonathan Lange wrote:
> I showed the page to cjwatson & mpt: here's what they said (roughly):
>
>   * (cjwatson) It's very important to have a page that has every
> upload and the changelog entry corresponding to each upload. This is
> different from the current changelog, since changelog entries can be
> deleted. Such a page needs to be structured so that the browser's text
> search can be used to quickly find things.

Colin, what's the use case for this?  I am just wondering if there's a better 
way of doing what you need.  The problem with doing this is that it's not 
scalable and a pretty costly page to render for some packages. We see a lot of 
timeouts in the OOPS reports, so if I can find a better way we'd avoid that?  
We'd also reduce end-user frustration.

>   * (cjwatson) On the DSPR page, it's important to be able to quickly
> get at old versions of binary packages. This helps advanced users who
> want to test how newer versions of packages have broken their system.

That page doesn't currently do this - is this a new requirement?  I'm happy to 
accommodate but I want to make sure you're not referring to the DSP page.

>   * (cjwatson) The dspr_mockup.png file says that 'Table entries link
> to build pages'. However, every build for a given (arch,
> sourcepackage) will be the same.

Right, that's an issue.

How about the headings link to the builds instead, and we put the ticks and 
crosses next to the headings?  The table can then contain a check mark where a 
package is built for each arch.

>   * (cjwatson) Saying that the only build is i386 when you really mean
> architecture-independent build is confusing.

Right - that could be detected and we can display "arch-indep" instead?

>   * (cjwatson) In an ideal world, there wouldn't be "Available diffs",
> you'd ask for diffs between arbitrary versions and get them. Perhaps
> this is just a matter of waiting for more Bazaar integration.

It would certainly make it easier!  But for now, we need to just present the 
information that's already available in this redesign.

>   * (mpt) Way too many fonts: particularly sizes & headings.

That will change before the final release; this page was done with a 
combination of old stylesheets and Gimp.  And I suck at graphics.

>   * (mpt) Given that the publishing history is a set of multi-value
> structured data over time, it should be presented as a table, e.g.
> (date, version, status, distroseries, pocket, component, section,
> action, archive). Each column should be click-sortable.

This is done already, on pages like this:
https://edge.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/network-manager/+publishinghistory
although it's not click-sortable because it has the expandable sections.

This will only work on pages that that display the full history, which is 
problematic as I described above.  The new pages only display the latest 
version in each active series, which will be a small list.

>
>   * (mpt & jml) The green on the dspr page is a little ugly.

Yeah, that's the current crappy default style for download links, it will most 
probably change soon along with the wrapping issue.

> All my words, not theirs.
>
> And the following points also came up, which I'm just requoting from
>
> my earlier mail:
> > - Needs more space around the logo, below and to the right

Noted, thanks.

> >
> > - The "Get Involved" thing looks out of place, and to be honest, I
> > don't think of filing a bug as 'getting involved'

This is identical to the existing project and person page mockups that Martin 
did.  Martin, do you have any comment on this?

> > - Seeing "<Verbed> on <date>" makes me wonder who verbed it.

These actions are automatic operations, I'm not sure how I can improve it 
since there is no person <verbing> here.  Could it be presented differently?

> > - The "Full publishing history" link should be below the publishing
> > history, not below the PPA list

Maybe.  This one is a long-running dilemma because we want the PPA section on 
the page with no scrolling.  Having said that, all the sections are collapsed 
by default so I'll experiment with some real data.

> > - Maybe there should be a link to browse the source code

Nice idea!  This would just be a link to the code facet I think?  It would 
come in the Get Involved section, following the current design 
recommendations.

> >
> > - Intermediate Ubuntu users might not be able to map from binary
> > package name to source package name in their head. Should we include
> > the names of the binary packages that this is built into?

That very data is on the DSPR page already, and in the new mockup.

From your other email:

>- This might not be UI policy, but text that runs so wide is harder to
>read for me.

I hope this will change in the final 3.0 stylesheet.

>- Why do you say '300 bugs' and '20 questions' at all?

It seemed like a good thing at the time, but yeah I am thinking about the 
relevance.

>
>- If you do have to refer to bugs and questions, it might be better to
>say '200 untriaged bugs and 15 questions that need answering'.

If that info is easily and quickly available it's a good idea.

>- More vertical space between distroseries

Or perhaps left-indent the expanders?

>- "Published" being bold seems out of place

This is the same as what's already done in the full publishing history, and on 
the expandable sections on the PPA page.  We could change it everywhere if it 
looks that bad?

>- The 'Builds' section seems like it's floating there with nothing to
>do. I don't know what it means or why it's there.
>
>- It took me a while to realize that it wasn't a checkbox I could untick.

It's the same expander section as on the PPA page.  I'm not sure how to better 
present all the data.

>- How is the PPA list sorted? I'd hope it's by some product of
>popularity and freshness.

Karma of the uploader.  It's the same section that's already in production.

We plan on adding popularity, downloads and other factors later this year, but 
the karma ordering does a pretty good job already.

>- The link says "search for more...". Does it really link to a search
>page, or does it just link to a listing? If so, maybe worth choosing a
>different verb. ("There are N more untrusted versions..." perhaps)

It's a link to a pre-made search, so it's a listing.  We could add a number 
easily I think, nice suggestion.

>- There doesn't seem to be a way of linking the source package to upstream
>
>- The upstream link, where present, should be really prominent, I
>think. I know there can be lots of them, but I bet that either the
>current release link or the dev focus link makes sense almost all the
>time.

The linkage is done at a distroseries level.  We need to think a bit more 
about how to do this on a distribution page - right now the mockup just shows 
the product description from the linkage done on the most recent series.

The easy option is to just let people add the linkage from the product page, I 
don't know how useful the current presentation is on the DSP page.

>- If you came here as an Ubuntu user from a google search, I think
>you'd be a bit confused. I'm not sure what to do about that.

Confused in what way?

>- Do we have access to the popularity contest data? Can we show that?

That's not in LP AFAIK.  Nice idea though, we should do it.

>Thanks for doing this, I hope these help.

They certainly do, thanks for the feedback.

J