My WineHQ menu structure proposal
Dimitrie O. Paun
dpaun at rogers.com
Sun Nov 3 11:26:45 CST 2002
On November 3, 2002 12:11 pm, Jeremy White wrote:
> I actually think that we could have exactly one entry - and
> that it be called 'Supported Applications'. That's the link
> people will click on; it addresses their immediate question.
> Trying to be more semantically precise with the main menu
> link is a mistake, imo.
I am not sure what you're saying here, but as far as I'm concerned,
I think we should have a link in the menu *only* to the Supported
Applications page (the hand written one), and from there a link to
the Application Database. If this is what you're saying, I agree.
If you are saying that we should point people directly to the
Application Database, I disagree.
> I disagree here. I don't think we should expound on CVS here, I'm
> just thinking a link to the detailed instructions under Development.
> What's the first thing a newbie gets told after reporting
> a problem: "Have you tried it against the CVS tip?"
But this is meaningless duplication. All menus are visible on the
screen, so there is no point in having two CVS links on the main
page. In order to use the latest CVS, you better know you're dealing
with Development stuff, so I still think it belongs under Development.
In fact, current practice is to put CVS stuff under development,
and _NOT_ download. Look at SourceForge, and a gazillion other sites.
And as I said, I think there are good reasons for doing it. And BTW,
even if there not, many times it's better to stay with the accepted
practice in things of these nature.
Hey, are these the only points of disagreement?!?!? :)
More information about the wine-devel