On Thursday 26 November 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 11:17:07PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > > Do you really think that having "AMD64", "Intel x86" and "Intel IA-64" > > instead of amd64, i386, ia64 will make people magically choose AMD64 > > if they're looking for 64-bit Intel support? > > I hadn't realised that Simon had made this change. That was the whole > _point_. Put the popular architectures first, and call them something > meaningful, ie: > > [x86 32-bit] [x86 64-bit] [PowerPC]
Changing things this way still does not make it fit in the current layout of the page and will still reduce readability (IMO). Also, making this change *only* for the image links is IMO not a good idea because it just introduces yet another identification for architectures. We already use too many different names and descriptions in different places. > Why should users have to learn what Debian's internal name for their > architecture is? Because that is what they see/need when they look at the sources.list or package names? > I have no objection to changing the layout. I would prefer a full redesign over just changing the layout. The current pages are problematic exactly because they try to fit everything on a single page and thus allow little room for explanation. But OTOH that's also their great strength for users who *do* know what they want, so solving the issue by linking to separate page(s) that add a good explanation of what's what is still an option too. An alternative could be to have a single page per release per architecture. Such pages would allow for much more information about the architecture (including links to related architectures) and more information about the different images. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
