Posted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:52 am Post subject: Newmainpage for RetroOffice work
I've "re-activated" Newmainpage for playing with layout changes to the Main Page for including RetroOffice next week.
I've also started work on a RetroOffice page, which I envision as a cross between the wiki's OOo page, Jake's OOo FAQ, and the NeoOffice page (more the former two than the latter)...just some basic information and warnings.
I updated the download page URL on the English RetroOffice page. The URL does not exist yet, but I guarantee that I will use that URL.
A few things came to mind when I read the two pages. They are just my impressions so ignore them if they are a hassle to implement are you disagree:
1. Newmainpage - My thinking is that having two separate boxes for the two X11 releases is a bit "busy". Is it possible to just put the X11 releases into one box? After all, RetroOffice is, for the most part, really OOo X11 plus ooo-build plus odf-converter plus native spellchecker and address book. My thinking is that these are two very similar products so it might be possible to just modify what we already have and just say "OOo X11 or RetroOffice" where something is applicable to both and just have separate links or notes where they differ (e.g. download URLs, installation steps, etc.).
2. Reporting bugs in RetroOffice - I like the current instructions that you have. But I think that RetroOffice may also uncover more than a few ooo-build bugs that should not be reported in OOo IssueZilla. So, maybe a possible alternative (though not an ideal one) is to push users to see if the bug exists in the same version of NeoOffice. If it does, then they should report it in our Bugzilla. This might cause some filing of OOo bugs, but we can state that we will determine if it is and OOo, ooo-build, or NeoOffice.org bug.
1. Newmainpage - My thinking is that having two separate boxes for the two X11 releases is a bit "busy". Is it possible to just put the X11 releases into one box?
Newmainpage is currently set up to show how that might look. Thoughts?
pluby wrote:
2. Reporting bugs in RetroOffice - I like the current instructions that you have. But I think that RetroOffice may also uncover more than a few ooo-build bugs that should not be reported in OOo IssueZilla. So, maybe a possible alternative (though not an ideal one) is to push users to see if the bug exists in the same version of NeoOffice. If it does, then they should report it in our Bugzilla. This might cause some filing of OOo bugs, but we can state that we will determine if it is and OOo, ooo-build, or NeoOffice.org bug.
This is fine with me; if everyone else is OK, I'll add it.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
I don't want to mess with your templates too much, but I have two things:
* I suggest moving the OpenOffice.org logo and text next to it down and put that newline between the RetroOfice and OOo descriptions rather than inside the OOo description. This looks a bit messy.
* Is NeoLight included with RetroOffice?
Best wishes,
Oscar _________________ "What do you think of Western Civilization?"
"I think it would be a good idea!"
- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi
* The current "NeoOffice Feature Comparison" (2.1) page will move to "NeoOffice 2.1 Feature Comparison"
* 2.2.1 page will move to "NeoOffice Feature Comparison"
* The top-of-the-page links between the two will be twiddled (as will whatever link the Press Kit for 2.1 has, so it still points at the 2.1 page) _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
* I suggest moving the OpenOffice.org logo and text next to it down and put that newline between the RetroOfice and OOo descriptions rather than inside the OOo description. This looks a bit messy.
I don't follow...? _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Question,
I really like the Feature Comparison page but is there some way to to replace all the * ** ****s
- Maybe Superscript #s, or something.
All the **** ** *'s kinda messes up the Y / N icons and gets confusing.
- I see other URL links, and the one [1] link to MS,
- something like a Link/Superscript would provide a cleaner page, and provide the viewer a link(?) to the explanation.
This is not vital to the New Release, but something that would improve the viewing
(AND display when others quote our Features - for marketing sake )
Philip (Still missing in action, but watching all the progress! )
Wikipedia has a nice footnote system, and I spoke to val1984 last time he was around about implementing it, but I have no idea how it works (i.e., if there's some add-on we need to have installed)
If someone can figure out how that works, I'd like to do it. Barring that, maybe we should cap * at 3 and then throw in some other symbols (§¤†‡※☃ etc.) to at least alleviate the never-ending strings of *.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Wikipedia has a nice footnote system, and I spoke to val1984 last time he was around about implementing it, but I have no idea how it works (i.e., if there's some add-on we need to have installed)
If someone can figure out how that works, I'd like to do it. Barring that, maybe we should cap * at 3 and then throw in some other symbols (§¤†‡※☃ etc.) to at least alleviate the never-ending strings of *.
Smokey
The extension that's used at Wikipedia is Cite.php, and there's also a guide there.
(and I'm just another very satisfied customer of NeoOffice. Patrick and Ed really did a good job with this, and I'm very grateful to them for writing this more mac-friendly app )
I'm coming to this rather late in the day but work has been rather hectic, one way or another.
Feel free to ignore my comments or shoot me down in flames but I think that each separate application needs to be boxed separately, if possible.
Visually, this means separate boxes for RetroOffice and OpenOffice, as opposed to the shared box currently. I feel that RetroOffice - particularly on first public release - needs to clearly differentiate itself from OpenOffice.org (X11) and that just doesn't come across in the present layout.
So 4 applications (NeoOffice, RetroOffice, OpenOffice.org, NeoLight) require 4 separate boxes.
There may even be a case to be made for distinguishing further between the 'Neo-family' items (NeoOffice, RetroOffice, NeoLight) which share a common developer team from OpenOffice.org (X11). Such a layout would give higher visual prominence and greater cohesion on the page to the Neo-family.
Hope this does not offend current opinion. _________________ Ray Saunders
World Scout Bureau
One problem with 4 boxes solution is that the NeoOffice box is two columns wide, whereas the other apps really don't have enough content to make them look OK in a wide box (see this old version (the Retro box had more content in it at that point, enough to line up with the bottom of the OOo box).
I don't disagree with the idea of separating the NeoOffice.org apps, but I'm not really sure how to do it well.
Patrick's suggestion seems to work the best of anything so far, despite the confusion it might cause.
Edit: Just to be clear, I'm not saying further discussion/layout ideas are bad, just that so far Patrick's seem the best to me.
Smokey _________________ "[...] whether the duck drinks hot chocolate or coffee is irrelevant." -- ovvldc and sardisson in the NeoWiki
Last edited by sardisson on Wed Aug 22, 2007 9:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
)
)
)