Re: Suggestion: Change the link names on http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/
Hi! * Gerfried Fuchs [091127 11:43]: > One suggestion that is pretty easy to implement and also should be > helpful straight ahead: Why not make amd64 and i386 appear in *bold* > letters? Would it be to much to ask to replace the single "amd64" with "amd64 / Intel EM64-T" (or however it's called) on the webpages? That might reduce the "your ia64 image doesn't boot on my intel box" complaints. Best Regards, Alexander signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Suggestion: Change the link names on http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/
* Frans Pop [2009-11-27 00:27:07 CET]: > On Thursday 26 November 2009, Matthew Wilcox wrote: > > 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 powerpc in my sources.list, and package names don't carry powerpc for me neither. On the other hand, enabling users to learn isn't a bad thing in itself. If it is additional, we shouldn't depend too much on educating our users - offering it is enough. One suggestion that is pretty easy to implement and also should be helpful straight ahead: Why not make amd64 and i386 appear in *bold* letters? That way they stand out and people are more likely to recoginize and choose them. Ordering and discussions on renaming one way or another might confuse, having it clearly standing out is a concept that everyone should easy be able to understand. You can afterwards continue to discuss wether allcaps or lowercase or the arch part from the package filename is the best option. ;) So long! :) Rhonda -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Re: Suggestion: Change the link names on http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/
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
Re: Suggestion: Change the link names on http://www.debian.org/releases/stable/debian-installer/
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] The exact names are debatable of course, but expecting people to deduce that 'amd64' is the right link to click on for their shiny new Intel Xeon system clearly isn't working. > The current pages would IMO be more improved by adding a clear link to a > *separate* page with info on "how to choose the correct architecture", > which contains a clear description of what each architecture is. I'm not sure that's a great idea either. Why should users have to learn what Debian's internal name for their architecture is? > If you want to really improve the links to images, which you're very > welcome to do, then please do it by *redesigning* the pages with the links > instead of forcing changes into an existing layout where the changes do > more harm than that they improve things. I have no objection to changing the layout. I want to make this page more new-user friendly (since it's rather key to getting new users into Debian). -- Matthew Wilcox Intel Open Source Technology Centre "Bill, look, we understand that you're interested in selling us this operating system, but compare it to ours. We can't possibly take such a retrograde step." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-cd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
