Why not ask the users to give their opinions about the web page they
use like did you find what you are looking for?, could you please
rate this page?, or marketing research questionnaires like which
mathematics software you use?, what would you like to see at web
page? etc...?
On Wed, May 27,
Also, why not give them some real life example for why to use a
free/opensource program instead of a commercial one. I think this is
far more important then money. In example, one of a professor at my
university has written a program on a language which has no support
now. And everything he has
ahmet alper parker wrote:
Also, why not give them some real life example for why to use a
free/opensource program instead of a commercial one. I think this is
far more important then money. In example, one of a professor at my
university has written a program on a language which has no
On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 10:25 PM, ahmet alper parker aapar...@gmail.com wrote:
Also, why not give them some real life example for why to use a
free/opensource program instead of a commercial one. I think this is
far more important then money. In example, one of a professor at my
university
ahmet alper parker wrote:
Anyone know any technical paper about ergonomic and/or
functional/aesthetic development/design of a web sites? Why not do it
more scientific? :)
FWIW, I used to meet someone on the train to work, who lived near me and
worked at the same uni as me.
As part of his
Well, if you want to know, what's possible look:
http://www.csszengarden.com/
Michael
On 27 Mai, 11:42, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
ahmet alper parker wrote:
Anyone know any technical paper about ergonomic and/or
functional/aesthetic development/design of a web sites?
I like the site the way it is. I've been translating many of the pages
into Russian, and the great thing about the design is the simplicity.
The source html reads more or less like LaTeX to me in that all the
commands are meaningful and transparent. As far as the content, I
think it is important
Kwankyu wrote:
Hi,
The Sage website looks pale and gloomy to me.
That's what I feel - it needs brightening up somewhat.
But I don'like
Mathematica's website either.
Fair enough. These things are very subjective.
Also I want to express my opinion again here that I don't like the
Sage
Regarding ideas for improving the site, I'm not afraid of change. If
this whole discussion ends with everything is fine now, let's do
nothing, than I'll be disappointed. I'm sure our site isn't optimal,
and even if it was optimal one year ago when Harald rolled it out,
there is no harm in
On May 26, 9:17 am, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net
wrote:
whereas the sage site has 14 errors.
to my defese, two of them are not really valid errors and should be
warnings and the remaining 12 are the snippet from
mailhide.recaptcha.net .. obviously they provided an erroneous code. i
On May 26, 1:10 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
Is this right:
(1) edit ~/www2-dev/www/*
(2) Run the script go_live.sh in www2-dev
yes, and before you do (2) you can always check your changes in the ./
sandbox/ subdirectory. see ~/www2-dev/README.TXT
Also, I'll add something to
I think the web page is very nice.
By the way: If there are problems with cross browser CSS,
then a CSS framework like tripoli
might help.
Michael
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this
Harald Schilly wrote:
if someone finds something odd on any of the other pages, please tell
me. the main reason for using xhtml 1 transitional is, that it can be
made valid (in contrast to xhtml 1 strict) and at the same time be
used across all browsers and rendered correctly!
Sometimes
Anyone know any technical paper about ergonomic and/or
functional/aesthetic development/design of a web sites? Why not do it
more scientific? :)
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 11:33 PM, Peter Jeremy
peterjer...@optushome.com.au wrote:
On 2009-May-23 11:09:09 +0100, Dr. David Kirkby
I'm no expert in design, but from what I can get from my personal feel:
from the Mathematica site, what I think called the attention of the OP
is that it's red. Simply as that. From the wikipedia page on Marketing
(which by the way seems pretty informational):
Requirements of a good
Hi
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 06:33:16AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
On 2009-May-23 11:09:09 +0100, Dr. David Kirkby david.kir...@onetel.net
wrote:
http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/index.html
and then comparing it to
http://www.sagemath.org/
one would have to say the Mathematica
Harald Schilly wrote:
On May 24, 3:14 pm, Gonzalo Tornaria torna...@math.utexas.edu wrote:
Here's a 5 minute hack of something along those
lines:http://sage.math.washington.edu/home/tornaria/sagemath.png
sorry, for me, that's just ugly. i tried to find more colors thaat fit
together
On May 25, 2009, at 04:00 , Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
BTW, http://sage.milnix.org/ does not appear to be alive. I noticed
that
a day or so ago, and it is still dead.
I've lost track of where and when milnix.org arose, but it looks like
the system is awake. It's just not listening for
I think you guys have it pretty well covered but let me just say +1 to
mathematica page making me nervous +1 I don't like flash either +1 the
sage page is nice. ...
Maybe if there was some sort of cms/videos it would be great. I had
no idea that the whole thing was static. Maybe tack a little
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Justin C. Walker jus...@mac.com wrote:
On May 25, 2009, at 04:00 , Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
BTW, http://sage.milnix.org/ does not appear to be alive. I noticed
that
a day or so ago, and it is still dead.
I've lost track of where and when milnix.org arose,
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 4:06 PM, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 1:02 PM, Justin C. Walker jus...@mac.com wrote:
On May 25, 2009, at 04:00 , Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
BTW, http://sage.milnix.org/ does not appear to be alive. I noticed
that
a day or so ago, and
Hi,
The Sage website looks pale and gloomy to me. But I don'like
Mathematica's website either.
Also I want to express my opinion again here that I don't like the
Sage logo (but I like Cython's logo very much). Perhaps what I don't
like is the science fiction-ish glyph. I wish someone artistic
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Dr. David Kirkby
david.kir...@onetel.net wrote:
But the Mathematica page is also much more aesthetically pleasing. The
use of nice colours helps - I'm not convinced using only blue and black
is a good idea.
IMHO, the sagemath.org webpage is very nice and
On May 24, 3:14 pm, Gonzalo Tornaria torna...@math.utexas.edu wrote:
IMHO, the sagemath.org webpage is very nice and lean, but a little
bit too plain wrt colors, and a lack of contrast. In addition, the
border color (around the white box with the actual content) is too
bright, which draws
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Taking a look at
http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/index.html
and then comparing it to
http://www.sagemath.org/
one would have to say the Mathematica one looks much better.
I've designed a few web sites:
http://witm.sourceforge.net/
But
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Jason Grout
jason-s...@creativetrax.com wrote:
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Taking a look at
http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/index.html
and then comparing it to
http://www.sagemath.org/
one would have to say the Mathematica one looks much better.
Dr. David Kirkby wrote:
Taking a look at
http://www.wolfram.com/products/mathematica/index.html
and then comparing it to
http://www.sagemath.org/
one would have to say the Mathematica one looks much better.
The Mathematica one looks like every other commercial software website
out
Hi
On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 04:47:51PM +0200, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
The Mathematica one looks like every other commercial software website
out there. The glossiness kicks me instantly into a mode of trying to
skip the marketing hype, meaning I hardly read any of it.
I might not be
PS:
On 23 Mai, 19:34, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hence, it might be a good idea to make it clearer that SAGE IS ABOUT
MATHS, FOLKS! This might be achieved by Eye Catchers: Some nice
graphics; some icons illustrating what a link links with (e.g., a mini-
screen-shot of the notebook for a
On May 23, 6:43 pm, bump b...@match.stanford.edu wrote:
I have one constructive comment, which is that one gets misled
in looking for the documentation. There are two buttons...
Well, you know, two points for my defense: I'm not a native speaker
and these things evolved over time. i.e. help
On May 23, 7:34 pm, simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
2. Provide a direct link to the FAQ on the main page. Actually it took
me a while to find them.
I thought about that, but my feeling is that the wiki faq page (do you
mean that one?) has very poor quality. i just looked there and old
things
Jason Grout wrote:
I think we have a very competent web designer that has done an
outstanding job (you should see the old web page!). I think what we
need now is marketing ideas! The big difference I see in a short glance
between the two pages is that the MMA one screams I AM MATH
I would just like to second this - exchange help and documentation.
-M. Hampton
On May 23, 11:43 am, bump b...@match.stanford.edu wrote:
I agree that the sage web page is good, and preferrable to the
mathematica page.
I have one constructive comment, which is that one gets misled
in
simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote:
Hi!
On 23 Mai, 18:43, bump b...@match.stanford.edu wrote:
I agree that the sage web page is good, and preferrable to the
mathematica page.
These are things that the Mathematica web site has. On the other hand,
these are exactly the things that I DO NOT
I just want to make sure to add my vote: I think the Mathematica page
sucks, for reasons that have already been posted here. I decided to
adopt Sage after the new page was up, but I remember the older page
and can tell you that the new one is a big step forward. It really
makes
Sage look like
35 matches
Mail list logo
