Re: [Audacity-devel] [Audacity-quality] website update mockup & 2.0 release
A free multi-track audio editor and recorder
Brought to you by:
aosiniao
From: Vaughan J. <va...@au...> - 2012-03-09 21:43:32
|
Thanks, Gale. On 3/9/2012 11:55 AM, Gale Andrews wrote: > > Thanks, Vaughan. I found some blockers/lesser blockers. > > B http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/mac-v > "Audacity 2.0.0 zip file (12.8 MB) for Windows 2000/XP/Vista/7 " D'oh! Cut and paste error. Fixed. > and link incorrect "http://audacity.googlecode.com/files/" Wow, that was correct in one version, but somehow some stuff got reverted. (See below.) This error was in /latest/versions.inc-v.php having gotten reverted, because all I did to fix it was re-put that file. > > B http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/plugins > has outdated VST and Libraries info referring to 1.2, 1.3.8 etc. > > I created: > http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/plugins-g > > with better text. OT to 2.0 release (and hardly a blocker for it). Should have been done a while ago, so please go ahead and commit that. > > B http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/beta_common.inc.php > has link to the old LAME FAQ: > http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq?s=install&item=lame-mp3 Irrelevant, as we're not linking to any of the beta pages any more, right? None of the *-v.php files do, and 1.3.14 is no longer in the nav bar (as shown only in the index-v pages currently). > > which will still exist pro tem for benefit of those not reading in English > but is somewhat incorrect e.g. in Windows step 5. Not when the 2.0 pages are up. > > I created http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/beta_common.inc-g.php > to link to Manual FAQ's. This is another that's OT to 2.0 release, but go ahead and commit it, for completeness. > > I'll go through for other links to FAQ's too. > > lesser B's... > > B http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/index-v > typo in download box "MaC" Fixed. > > B http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/windows-v > Audacity 2.0 zip file (7.7 MB) Windows 98/ME ("for" > missing) I don't know what happened, but this morning I had one version of /download/index-v on my screen, so I know I had posted it correctly, but when I refreshed it, it showed a previous version! Weird. SourceForge was having some problems for about 15 minutes yesterday -- PSFTP was dropped numerous times, so maybe they had to go back to a former snapshot... But I didn't see this after I moved it back to the newer one (with the ansi downloads at top of Optionals). I did see it on mac-v, though, and have fixed that. > > Rest of it below is "may be nice" or "after 2.0" only, and a query > about the navbar not accepting external links. > > > | From Vaughan Johnson <va...@au...> > | Fri, 09 Mar 2012 00:04:53 -0800 > | Subject: [Audacity-quality] website update mockup & 2.0 release >> Here's a summary of today's changes to the website mockup: >> >> * index-v.php > > Maybe in the second para, you don't even need "Most users should > download this version". Nothing else can (easily) be found. Great. I *love* removing verbiage. Done. > > * On http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/release-notes-v > the link to Release Notes should I think go to: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Release_Notes > > not to http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Release_Notes_2.0.0 > (to save future maintenance). Release_Notes has so little content, and the "Release Notes" link there so small, I decided for this version to link directly to Release_Notes_2.0.0 (and there are 3 other places I did that, not just features-2.0). I added a comment in /download/index-v that it will need to be changed for future releases. > > But we can have a navbar link to Wiki Release Notes, I believe > (see below). > > * Same comment for http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/features-2.0 > It's fine now, but if we are keeping links to that page later on > through 2.x it may be better to link to: > http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Release_Notes I'm going to keep it Release_Notes_2.0.0 in all those cases. > > and the text following the link is more general e.g "for more details". Done. > > * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/features-1.3-a-v > > We could get rid of the three bullets at the top. Of little relevance > now? Nothing will link to it once the *-v.php changes are moved into the SVN versions. So no point in modifying it further. I made those changes only when I thought were going to have the Legacy Downloads section, but it's now irrelevant. > > * http://audacity.sourceforge.net/download/source-v > has an unresolved query that libsndfile is actually required but not > stated. Even if you can build Audacity without libsndfile, it won't > as I understand it process audio. As the question is unresolved, I made no change to it. OT to 2.0 release. Let's fix it whenever the question is resolved. > > >> * /download/index-v.php >> >> * Completed making the heading of the box not be a link to New >> Features (per David's request for vi users). Added New Features and >> Release Notes (directly to the wiki) links to Further Information. >> Note that the Release Notes link in the nav bar points to >> release-notes-v, which just points to the wiki, because the nav bar >> code doesn't handle off-site links. > > I think the navbar supports off-site links. See the navbar here: > http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq . Oh, good! I didn't see that. Changed it to point to http://wiki.audacityteam.org/wiki/Release_Notes_2.0.0 . Unfortunately, the support code for that doesn't handle the indentation, but I think this is better. (I tried using in front of the anchor text, but then you get the link underline for however many 's, so that's no good.) This should obviate the need for release_notes_v! > > >> * Changed my mind about Win 98/ME versions and moved it from top of >> Options to below "Plug-ins and Libraries". Surely it's less >> important than those, as we decided to not support those OS'S a few >> years ago. > > The only real argument for having it top of the optional downloads is that > it is not then below "Alternative Download Links" which makes little sense. > I'm happy as now, though. It's only this once. That common.inc.php was a bad idea. Yes it saves duplication, but causes more problems than it's worth. Weird modularization. So I just got rid of common.inc-v.php and put the duplicate text in both files. There's already a lot of that, and it's actually a good thing in comparing them. > > >> * On windows-v and mac-v, made them more consistent, and promoted the >> zip files to the Recommended Downloads. I think that's clearer than >> putting them in Optionals. > > +1 Thanks, Gale. I think I've answered all the outstanding issues. Will see if I have time to mock up the front page button, etc. - V |