From: Patrick B. <pb...@mi...> - 2000-11-14 20:28:07
|
Huh? You don't like graphics... on a webpage? Isn't the whole point of the Web the visual display? (Even Gnu's webpage has a picture of a bull on every page.) Look guys, whether or not you like Matt's design (maybe there's a technical problem and you aren't even able to see the design as it's intended to look) you have to realize something about the current design of www.mingw.org: it is not user friendly. You may like it, but then again you are technically adept people who have lots of experience using mingw and lots of experience using the website with its current design. www.mingw.org is the homepage for the entire mingw project. The average user of the site is a person who is not as expert as yourselves. You may be browsing the site using lynx in linux where you cross-compile your win32 applications. The average user will be using Internet Explorer 5.0 in Windows 98. I thought the idea of www.mingw.org is to make it easy for beginners to download the compiler and find information. The site should appeal not only to experts, but to people who have never even programmed before! If you can accomplish that then the website in and of itself will grow your user base. Check out the webpage for DJGPP: http://www.delorie.com/djgpp/. The DJGPP project has a lot in common with MinGW. The webpage is totally different, though. It has animated advertisements, lots of graphics, loads of great information, and an easy system for downloading the compiler. Have you ever checked out the Zip Picker on that site? It's incredibly easy to use. Novices can master it in a few minutes. Why is it easier to download a slew of zip files from DJGPP's website than it is to download *ONE* self-extracting executable from MinGW's website? Borland now gives away their C++ compiler. Look at their website: http://www.borland.com/bcppbuilder/freecompiler/ (Tons of graphics) Look at the webpage for the Open Watcom project. This is another free C/C++ compiler. http://www.openwatcom.org/ (Also has tons of graphics) Even some of the older MinGW websites (from before www.mingw.org) have at least some graphics on them. Some of the content on this site http://www.geocities.com/Tokyo/Towers/6162/gcc.html (notice the cool graphic at the top) is still relevant but has not been transferred to www.mingw.org. Here's a list of things you might consider about the current website: -The design is very plain... it has the feel of reading a text file in Notepad more than the feel of a webpage. It appears to be based on the design of the Cygwin site, but lacks many of the best features of that site. -The "Who Are We" page is completely blank. -The links at the bottom of the homepage ("MinGW is reviving") are broken. -The navigation sidebar is not well organized. -There is a link for "Download", but personally I can't get it to work (it crashes my browser in fact, IE 5.5) -The ported software section is not particularly easy to use... links are provided, but no information is given as to what software is at those links. -The description of MinGW on the homepage is very technical. It's good, but perhaps shouldn't be the first thing on the homepage. Instead use a brief description like what is used for DJGPP on Delorie's site. To me, though, the most important improvement to the website is that the download of the compiler should be *one* click away from the homepage, and should be very clearly delineated. Other things that might be added to increase traffic on the site: -C library reference -Win32 API reference -Tutorials -Online Documentation It's not that the current website sucks. It's really fine. It's probably easy to update information on it. If it's meant primarily for the members of this mailing list then don't change it. But it doesn't have the look of professionalism that's going to draw new users, entice other website masters to link to MinGW's page, attract attention from people who make CD compilations, and promote massive usage by the people who can benefit most from this product. Paul, you also said this: I'd prefer to have www.mingw.org as it is now. But Matt, if you want to maintain "user-friendly" site with all those pictures, etc, we can host it too. I encourage you to re-think that. Hosting 2 different sites for the same project would be self-defeating. If www.ming.org is the homepage for the MinGW project, then it should be the user friendly webpage that attracts novices and experts alike. It should have all the bells and whistles of comparable website's like DJGPP's, including graphics, mouse-overs, and a user-friendly design. Use Matt's design or don't, but do something! Ok now I'll shut up before you kick me off the mailing list ;) Your friend, Patrick -----Original Message----- From: min...@li... [mailto:min...@li...]On Behalf Of Paul Sokolovsky Sent: Monday, November 13, 2000 6:23 PM To: Earnie Boyd Cc: Matt Block Subject: Re[4]: [MinGW-dvlpr] Fwd: RE: mingw website Hello Earnie, Earnie Boyd wrote on Tuesday, November 14, 2000: EB> --- Matt Block <mi...@ho...> wrote: >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- >> Hash: SHA1 >> >> Pauls et al, >> >> Howdy. The most recent incarnation of the design Mumit and I >> discussed is available at http://www.mingw.org.home.blockdev.net/. >> Obviously, the design is not yet complete (some buttons are in weird >> places and things,) and certainly the content is not up-to-date. I >> believe, and hope, that the design is clean, fast-loading, easy to >> use, and minimal without being sparse. I think those are the goals >> of MingW, so they should be the goals of the website as well. >> >> The little funny looking dude in the logo is Ming. He's fully >> rendered, if not particularly artistically, and can be modified... in >> the final design, I intend for him to take a more direct role in >> providing information (he'll actually be a part of every page, >> indicating where interesting information is and explaining it... like >> the Office Assistant, only not annoying). >> EB> One other thing, it's going to be difficult for me to approve anything but dark EB> text on light background. My eyes have trouble reading light text on a dark EB> background. Well, neither I am too impressed - I see it black-on-white now, but with this it looks worse than current site. Also, I'm great disliker of the graphics - if something can be done without it, it should be done so, IMHO. Current site is ideal with this respect. But the main problem I see is that it simply doesn't ant new *content*. So, can you present a motivation why your design should be used instead of current? EB> Cheers, EB> ===== EB> Earnie Boyd EB> mailto:ear...@ya... -- Paul Sokolovsky, IT Specialist http://www.brainbench.com/transcript.jsp?pid=11135 _______________________________________________ MinGW-dvlpr mailing list Min...@li... http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/mingw-dvlpr |