On Wed, 2009-09-02 at 12:34 -0300, Christian Robottom Reis wrote: > Was taking a look at https://edge.launchpad.net/lilregcleaner and had a > few bits of feedback to give on the project page; perhaps these are > small enough bits that we can address pre-3.0. Here goes: > > - First, WOW! This page looks really good! I'm happy to see the > results of the design cycles we did on it. > > - A few improvements related to the downloads section: > > * The links are downloaded, and they shouldn't be.
I do not understand this point. > * The font for the files is too big, which leads to them being > super-truncated. I think the middle of the filename could be > truncated when too long (Little_[...]_3.0.tgz). I saw Julian working on this. I want to make this happen for all uses of this portlet. yes, the font is too big. > * The downloads are for a single release, but it doesn't say > anywhere what release it is for! One way to render it would be > with the the "released on" text, such as > > for version 1.3.3, released on 2009-07-30 +1 > I'm pretty sure that will wrap; maybe the right way to handle > this is to use two separate lines, maybe the right way to > handle it is to put the version at the top: > > Downloads > (for version 1.3.3) > .---------------------. > | | > '---------------------' > .---------------------. > | | > '---------------------' > .---------------------. > | | > '---------------------' > released on 2009-07-30 > > * When there are no downloads, the section looks a bit wonky: > > https://edge.launchpad.net/libindicate > > I wonder if the right solution to this problem is to say "No > downloads registered" and "No releases registered" to > non-owners, and "Add release" and "Add download files" to > owners. Or if we should just omit the section. I really do not want to omit the section. If I do, users will reopen or report new bugs that they searched in vain for downloads that do not exist. We need to state that there are no releases. > - The FAQs section says "List all FAQs" but the others say "All > questions", etc. Yes. I noted this in branch I landed yesterday, but only after I submitted it. I will fix it. > - The Series and milestones graph looks much better, and I'm happy > that the spacing and ordering works well enough, but the legend > "trunk" is at the beginning of the graph and that gets truncated > in the default rendering. > It appears we're defaulting the graph to showing centralized; why > don't we show it by default right-aligned, so the latest versions > appear there? This is my understanding of the how the timeline is rendered. It clearly is not in this example. > We had considered for projects with lots of series, like bzr, > rendering a taller viewport for it. Does that still make sense? This may not be easy since we do not want to introduce access whitespace under the information portlet. > - The project title is repeated. Not only that, but it is also > editable in one place, but not in the other, and when you update > it, it doesn't update the second instance. This is a known issue. > How to solve this is an interesting problem; perhaps the right way > is to allow the actual top-level title to be editable when the > content is editable, and have a customized callback hook per > content-object. > > (The project display name still exists. Does that still need to > exist?) barry, beuno, salgado, noodles, and myself have been discussing how to solve this. Barry has started a branch address all the issues we have discovered. > - The Get Involved section buttons are almost there but not exactly > there yet: > > * The underlining is a bit distracting; if you think > highlighting the whole row in gray works, let's do that. > > * There is a horizontal line after the last item, which we > should omit. > > * I think the font of the heading of that section is a bit too > large, and the background being white seems to imply to me > it's also a link, where it's actually a heading. There is only one heading size for the side portlets. They all must change in this case. > - When an announcement is truncated, I kind of miss a [more] link at > the end of the ellipsis. Is that not standard, or do we have a > standard? We can revisit this, the <more> link looked like clutter, and on the announcement listing, it is an offsite like I think. We need better clarity. > Good work! Thanks. This gets easier and better with each page we adapt because we discover refinements to the rules. -- __Curtis C. Hovey_________ http://launchpad.net/
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
