WineHQ redesign - TODO (Download)

[Dimitrie O. Paun]

On March 21, 2003 06:31 pm, Jeremy Newman wrote:
> >      + Download/Source: it seems ... incomplete. IMO we should collapse
> >       the two Download page into a single page. But where do we stick
> >       the menu item? In About? In Support? I suggest About.
>
> I'm currently happy with the seperate pages. And I believe Francois was
> very adamant about having downloads be its own menu item. All the
> navigation I have so far is based off his suggestions in bugzilla.
> Although he wanted drop downs which I despise.

Well, the design is great, and I like it, but that does not mean we can
not tweak it once we see how it looks. I've ask around, and the Source
page does look empty. Why have it? It has one link to ibiblio... It's
confusing, as the SF page we point people to from Binaries also contains
sources, as it should.

Bottom line is, it's silly to force the content to two pages, just to
justify a different menu box. (BTW, I've noticed that you've made
the title of the menu boxes unclickable, thank you! I wanted to ask you
to do so, you beat me to the punch :) ).

What I suggest is that in the main download page, under the
"Official Wine Versions" we list the four sources which appear
in the ANNOUNCEMENT:
   http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/ALPHA/wine/development
   ftp://ftp.infomagic.com/pub/mirrors/linux/sunsite/ALPHA/wine/development
   ftp://ftp.fu-berlin.de/unix/linux/mirrors/sunsite.unc.edu/ALPHA/wine/development
   ftp://orcus.progsoc.uts.edu.au/pub/Wine/development
The "System" column should just say "Source". Personally, I don't know
why we need to list all these mirrors. SF provides for mirrors, etc.
Alexandre, what about if we list just the ibibilo link?

Or even better, provide a "Source Mirrors" list at the end of the page,
so we don't clutter the important stuff with all this.


There are other problems on the main Download page:

  -- The big warning must go:
    By downloading one of the binary packages given below, you 
    acknowledge that the Wine devel team has absolutely no 
    responsibility and authority on these packages. The packagers
    frequently even fail to follow the Wine Packaging Guide 
    instructions, resulting in highly reduced functionality. 
    In short: if you want to make sure that your Wine config 
    is done as outlined (thus gaining pretty good compatibility), 
    then use the Wine source and read the documentation very carefully.

    What's the point in providing these packages in the first place
    if the first thing we say is this?!? Let's just kill it.

  -- The "Dataparty" entry has a "Currently glibc-2.2.2." note
     which is redundant, as it's stated in the "System" column.

  -- The "Daily Debian Wine" entry has installation instructions
     in the Description column. They uglify the page, I think
     they belong on Andreas's site.


-- 
Dimi.