On Wed, 2010-07-07 at 12:47 +0100, Phil Bull wrote: [...] > This is certainly something we can help with. I think it would be useful > to develop some guidelines for user-friendly package descriptions before > we start fixing bugs; consistency is particularly desirable in this > situation, and decent guidelines will allow developers to fix their own > package descriptions properly, if they like. > Brilliant ! This would certainly help a lot! Having a unified pattern for all the descriptions would certainly bring consistency.
> Do you have any information on what users are typically looking for in a > package description? We could guess at their requirements, but I'd > prefer to rely on actual feedback if possible. Charline Poirer is working on making them available , we should probably have it by the end of the week. > My guesses would be: > > * Broadly, what you can do with the application (simple > description, first para) > * Notable features > * Supported specialist features (necessarily more technical) > * Links to further information and documentation SC presents a link to homepage as "Website". So we probably dont need it in the description. Interesting idea to link the documentation, maybe MPT could work it into his mockup? : https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#Software%20item%20screen > * Where the application can be started from once installed (might > cause problems between GNOME/KDE/Xfce/etc.) https://wiki.ubuntu.com/SoftwareCenter#%E2%80%9CWhere%20Is%20It?%E2%80% 9D%20button Should cover that. > * Equivalence to applications on other operating systems > The first two para should be sufficient for most of the applications. We should probably set a guideline which applications need the rest. MPT , your thoughts on setting a standard format for descriptions? > In reference to comments in some of the bugs: including technical > information is not necessarily a bad thing. There are use cases where > the user specifically wants technical information, such as which file > formats can be handled by an application, or whether certain specialist > hardware is supported. Application extension handling is essential , it's not planned to remove that information. Users do often search for applications based on the filetype they want to open. > For the GIMP, that would lead to a description something like this: [...] Thanks , mentioned it on the bug report. -- Cheers, Vish _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-manual More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
