Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

[Oliver Heimlich]

On 14.10.2015 19:49, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 09:46, Carlo De Falco <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the new design very much!

Thank you (and others) very much for the kind words and the feedback. It
is fun to work on it when there is so much interest :-)

>> On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:17, Oliver Heimlich <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. All packages need an icon. Luckily I have already prepared some ;-)
>>> The idea is that the icon is independent of the package release and is
>>> maintained by the Octave Forge maintainer (Carnë) and must be provided
>>> only once (ideally by the package author).
>>
>> why not just require to add an "icon.png" file in each package tarball ?
> 
> Why would have the package maintainer have to include the icon every time?
> I can't imagine that the icon would change very often so it makes more
> sense to do it only once (we probably shouldn't change it very often
> either since that would be confusing).
> Also, it would require less changes to the generate_html package.

If we can agree on having a doc/icon.png in every package's repository,
the change to generate_html package can be neglected and we should do
whatever is the best solution in the long term.

Having it inside the packages means that the package maintainer has
better control and Carnë won't have extra work in the future (with
regard to new packages or icon changes).

Having it inside project-web means that we have better control over the
overview page design as a whole. I believe that the latter is easier to
maintain given the number of “community maintained” packages.

> On 14 October 2015 at 09:51, Carlo De Falco <address@hidden> wrote:
>> [...]
>> In addition, what about also adding a link to a wiki page either besides
>> the "download" and "details" links or in the "details" page?
>>
>> Many packages already have their own wiki page, the list is on the
>> main page or can be accessed from here:
>> http://wiki.octave.org/Category:Octave-Forge
>>
> 
> That list is only a small part of the packages we have.  And the wiki
> page of many of those is mostly for developers (list of missing
> functions and options), so not the best to fit here.

True, there are only a few wiki pages that could serve as a package
documentation for users.

> Instead, the index page of each package could have links to any
> page that the package developer wants to (it is possible to have a
> url field on the DESCRIPTION file although I thing generate_html
> drops those).

IMHO the package documentation should be part of the package and be
included in the release as a manual, cf. the Desert Island Test (in DFSG).

Another strategic issue that we should consider is, whether Octave Forge
shall be the home for the packages or whether they may be scattered over
the internet, with websites, FAQs, examples and repositories elsewhere
(e.g. Github).

AFAIK the Url in the DESCRIPTION file is only used by downstream
distributors. It should contain the package's page on Octave Forge,
shouldn't it?

On 14.10.2015 08:01, Julien Bect wrote:
> Le 13/10/2015 22:17, Oliver Heimlich a écrit :
> Here are a few suggestions :
>
> a) Move "Renamed or moved packages" and "Unmaintained packages" to
> separate pages ?

This could be done as a second step, because it is not directly related.

> b) Improve the layout on wide screen by using two or three columns
> (responsive column design) ?

I have improved the responsiveness a little bit. Now you can fit 3
columns in FullHD.

> c) Perhaps include the description text in the mouseover popup of the
> package name ?

Although this could be easily implemented, I am not a fan of popups or
automatically resizing elements, because they usually get in my way.
Also you should consider that most packages do not have a lengthy
description at the moment, so this would not show additional info in
most cases.

> d) For the "details" pages, what do you think of this alternate design
> design : http://kriging.sourceforge.net/htmldoc ?

The main difference compared to the current design is that the function
overview is part of the initial page. I like it, but am unsure whether
this is better or not. Could be confusing for beginners, because they
get too much information.

The graphical design is similar. Having a maximum width helps on high
resolutions and wide screens. We could improve the octave-forge.css later.

Oliver