Re: the new oVirt website: live preview!
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 03:38:26PM +0200, Ewoud Kohl van Wijngaarden wrote:
On Wed, Sep 19, 2012 at 09:56:46AM +0200, Garrett LeSage wrote:
Check out the new site here: http://mediawiki-garrett.rhcloud.com/
I've turned the Inkscape mockups into a real, working website, powered by MediaWiki.
Awesome job to base it on mediawiki. I love having a single place to edit the site, guarded by permissions for stuff like the frontpage. How easy to maintain is it when we want to upgrade mediawiki?
Looks nice indeed ! A bit of feedback too:
Haven't checked it in-depth yet but I'm wondering if the search should be promoted to the top navigation.
Seconded, even if the new site makes a better use of today's large screens, the search is currently always hidden until one scrolls down The vertical spacing between 2 paragraphs or bulleted items looks a tad bit too large to my eye compared to the spacing between lines. The top page and the Download page don't even tell what licence is applicable, IMHO that crucial information should be presented to the user between the time it hits the home page and the time he's told how to install it on Fedora 17. thanks ! Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
On 09/20/2012 08:17 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Looks nice indeed !
Thanks!
Seconded, even if the new site makes a better use of today's large screens, the search is currently always hidden until one scrolls down
This sentence gives me an idea about how to possibly incorporate search. I'll have to play around with it a bit, but I might have something to show pretty soon.
The vertical spacing between 2 paragraphs or bulleted items looks a tad bit too large to my eye compared to the spacing between lines.
I adjusted the spacing so that the line rhythm was maintained on the page. It's especially needed on pages like: http://mediawiki-garrett.rhcloud.com/OVirt_3.1_release_notes (Which is a copy/paste of the wiki text from the official oVirt wiki.) I will probably tweak the fonts and text a bit further, especially when we have another reskinned instance of MediaWiki (containing all of the content from wiki.ovirt.org) up and running.
The top page and the Download page don't even tell what licence is applicable, IMHO that crucial information should be presented to the user between the time it hits the home page and the time he's told how to install it on Fedora 17.
That's a great point. Is it enough to mention "ASL2.0" in the footer and link to a licensing page, like the current oVirt.org website does? Or should we say more? Thanks for the feedback! Garrett
Hi, On 09/20/2012 02:27 PM, Garrett LeSage wrote:
On 09/20/2012 08:17 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
The top page and the Download page don't even tell what licence is applicable, IMHO that crucial information should be presented to the user between the time it hits the home page and the time he's told how to install it on Fedora 17.
That's a great point.
Is it enough to mention "ASL2.0" in the footer and link to a licensing page, like the current oVirt.org website does? Or should we say more?
IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page), and probably only when you're making changes (the "Developer" or "Contributor" pages). The important thing is to let people know that the product is open source - that they are free to modify and redistribute it. The actual license only matters at the point where you want to do that. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards, Red Hat Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
On 09/20/2012 02:57 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page),
Disagree. It should be on the front page. For various reasons. The main reason being that it is a fundamentally important thing to know. A short thing like "Open Source mainly under ASL 2.0, specifics here" where "here" is a link to the detailed license page. Doesn't hurt at all and makes it clear upfront what we are doing here. Jan -- Jan H Wildeboer | EMEA Open Source Affairs | Office: +49 (0)89 205071-207 Red Hat GmbH | Mobile: +49 (0)174 33 23 249 Technopark II, Haus C | Fax: +49 (0)89 205071-111 Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 | 85630 Grasbrunn | _____________________________________________________________________ Reg. Adresse: Red Hat GmbH, Technopark II, Haus C, Werner-von-Siemens-Ring 11 -15 85630 Grasbrunn, Handelsregister: Amtsgericht Muenchen HRB 153243 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Mark Hegarty, Charlie Peters, Michael Cunningham, Charles Cachera
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:18:20PM +0200, jwildebo@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/20/2012 02:57 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page),
Disagree. It should be on the front page. For various reasons. The main reason being that it is a fundamentally important thing to know. A short thing like "Open Source mainly under ASL 2.0, specifics here" where "here" is a link to the detailed license page.
Doesn't hurt at all and makes it clear upfront what we are doing here.
I agree with Jan. I'm obviously far from your target user or contributor (unless they are the sort that likes to or has to check with their lawyers, which could well be the case). However, two things that I find extremely annoying about so many project websites are (1) you have to go through multiple steps to get *any* idea about how the software is licensed, and (2) when licensing information is given, it tends to be inaccurately simple (because it is rarely the case that licensing can be reduced to one license). A statement like Jan suggests addresses both of these problems. Sadly, if it's a project I'm just finding out about, I don't trust the mere statement that it's "open source", and even when that's a reasonably accurate statement it isn't specific enough to be helpful to people who care about these things. - Richard
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 09:37 -0400, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:18:20PM +0200, jwildebo@redhat.com wrote:
On 09/20/2012 02:57 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page),
Disagree. It should be on the front page. For various reasons. The main reason being that it is a fundamentally important thing to know. A short thing like "Open Source mainly under ASL 2.0, specifics here" where "here" is a link to the detailed license page.
Definitely have to say "mainly" or "mostly". ovirt-node is GPLv2, not ASL and I'm pretty sure that the wiki stuff is something else (creative commons, maybe?) Mike
Doesn't hurt at all and makes it clear upfront what we are doing here.
I agree with Jan. I'm obviously far from your target user or contributor (unless they are the sort that likes to or has to check with their lawyers, which could well be the case). However, two things that I find extremely annoying about so many project websites are (1) you have to go through multiple steps to get *any* idea about how the software is licensed, and (2) when licensing information is given, it tends to be inaccurately simple (because it is rarely the case that licensing can be reduced to one license). A statement like Jan suggests addresses both of these problems.
Sadly, if it's a project I'm just finding out about, I don't trust the mere statement that it's "open source", and even when that's a reasonably accurate statement it isn't specific enough to be helpful to people who care about these things.
- Richard _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On 09/20/2012 10:28 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
Definitely have to say "mainly" or "mostly". ovirt-node is GPLv2, not ASL and I'm pretty sure that the wiki stuff is something else (creative commons, maybe?)
We doing all the doc / wiki content under AL2, as per the lic page as posted.
On 09/20/2012 06:37 AM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On 09/20/2012 02:57 PM, Dave Neary wrote:
IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page), Disagree. It should be on the front page. For various reasons. The main reason being that it is a fundamentally important thing to know. A short thing like "Open Source mainly under ASL 2.0, specifics here" where "here" is a link to the detailed license page.
Doesn't hurt at all and makes it clear upfront what we are doing here. I agree with Jan. I'm obviously far from your target user or contributor (unless they are the sort that likes to or has to check with their lawyers, which could well be the case). However, two things
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:18:20PM +0200, jwildebo@redhat.com wrote: that I find extremely annoying about so many project websites are (1) you have to go through multiple steps to get *any* idea about how the software is licensed, and (2) when licensing information is given, it tends to be inaccurately simple (because it is rarely the case that licensing can be reduced to one license). A statement like Jan suggests addresses both of these problems. +1
I think we should also consider that not all companies are as well versed in open source licensing as our employers. Often, a lawyer is the *first* decision maker on whether or not a software package is OK for an engineering team to use. As with all teams, legal teams are also often underresourced and these folks don't necessarily understand FOSS licensing matters intimately. Whatever we can do to make their way smoother, the more likely they will be to not simply reject oVirt out of hand because they could not find the information they needed easily. If we don't want detailed licensing info on the front page, have something in the footer that says "oVirt is open source" and have this link to a page with *detailed* licensing information, not just for the code but for the docs, iconography, etc. Best, LH
Sadly, if it's a project I'm just finding out about, I don't trust the mere statement that it's "open source", and even when that's a reasonably accurate statement it isn't specific enough to be helpful to people who care about these things.
- Richard _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
-- Leslie Hawthorn Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards @ Red Hat identi.ca/lh twitter.com/lhawthorn
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 02:57:07PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
Hi,
On 09/20/2012 02:27 PM, Garrett LeSage wrote:
On 09/20/2012 08:17 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
The top page and the Download page don't even tell what licence is applicable, IMHO that crucial information should be presented to the user between the time it hits the home page and the time he's told how to install it on Fedora 17.
That's a great point.
Is it enough to mention "ASL2.0" in the footer and link to a licensing page, like the current oVirt.org website does? Or should we say more?
IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page), and probably only when you're making changes (the "Developer" or "Contributor" pages). The important thing is to
I think you're optimistic there. Lot of people won't download stuff if they can't tell the Licence upfront, not just me :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
Hi, On 09/20/2012 04:06 PM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 02:57:07PM +0200, Dave Neary wrote:
IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page), and probably only when you're making changes (the "Developer" or "Contributor" pages). The important thing is to
I think you're optimistic there. Lot of people won't download stuff if they can't tell the Licence upfront, not just me :-)
Like I said, I think that what is important is to say that this is open source, that you can use, modify and resistribute it - and then put the license information/legalese in the download page or elsewhere. Cheers, Dave. -- Dave Neary Community Action and Impact Open Source and Standards, Red Hat Ph: +33 9 50 71 55 62 / Cell: +33 6 77 01 92 13
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 02:27:28PM +0200, Garrett LeSage wrote:
On 09/20/2012 08:17 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
The vertical spacing between 2 paragraphs or bulleted items looks a tad bit too large to my eye compared to the spacing between lines.
I adjusted the spacing so that the line rhythm was maintained on the page. It's especially needed on pages like:
http://mediawiki-garrett.rhcloud.com/OVirt_3.1_release_notes (Which is a copy/paste of the wiki text from the official oVirt wiki.)
I will probably tweak the fonts and text a bit further, especially when we have another reskinned instance of MediaWiki (containing all of the content from wiki.ovirt.org) up and running.
okay, well it's use one person feedback and i don't claim any UI sense :-) but again the space left between the last bullet of Installer section and the title of the Tools session looks quite large to my eye (I can put a finger between the bottom of the '(' and the top of the T here), vertical space is scarce especially on new screens :-\
The top page and the Download page don't even tell what licence is applicable, IMHO that crucial information should be presented to the user between the time it hits the home page and the time he's told how to install it on Fedora 17.
That's a great point.
Is it enough to mention "ASL2.0" in the footer and link to a licensing page, like the current oVirt.org website does? Or should we say more?
Saying it's OpenSource under "ASL2.0" with a link is sufficient sure ! thanks Garrett :-) Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 21:30 +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 02:27:28PM +0200, Garrett LeSage wrote:
On 09/20/2012 08:17 AM, Daniel Veillard wrote:
The vertical spacing between 2 paragraphs or bulleted items looks a tad bit too large to my eye compared to the spacing between lines.
I adjusted the spacing so that the line rhythm was maintained on the page. It's especially needed on pages like:
http://mediawiki-garrett.rhcloud.com/OVirt_3.1_release_notes (Which is a copy/paste of the wiki text from the official oVirt wiki.)
I will probably tweak the fonts and text a bit further, especially when we have another reskinned instance of MediaWiki (containing all of the content from wiki.ovirt.org) up and running.
okay, well it's use one person feedback and i don't claim any UI sense :-) but again the space left between the last bullet of Installer section and the title of the Tools session looks quite large to my eye (I can put a finger between the bottom of the '(' and the top of the T here), vertical space is scarce especially on new screens :-\
The top page and the Download page don't even tell what licence is applicable, IMHO that crucial information should be presented to the user between the time it hits the home page and the time he's told how to install it on Fedora 17.
That's a great point.
Is it enough to mention "ASL2.0" in the footer and link to a licensing page, like the current oVirt.org website does? Or should we say more?
Saying it's OpenSource under "ASL2.0" with a link is sufficient sure !
thanks Garrett :-)
Daniel
See other part of this thread -- we have projects in oVirt that are *not* ASL 2.0. ovirt-node is GPL2 and content on the site and wiki are something else as well, iirc. Mike
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:50:42AM -0400, Mike Burns wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 21:30 +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Is it enough to mention "ASL2.0" in the footer and link to a licensing page, like the current oVirt.org website does? Or should we say more?
Saying it's OpenSource under "ASL2.0" with a link is sufficient sure !
thanks Garrett :-)
Daniel
See other part of this thread -- we have projects in oVirt that are *not* ASL 2.0. ovirt-node is GPL2 and content on the site and wiki are something else as well, iirc.
I wasn't arguing for a licence, just arguing for it to be clarified before suggesting downloading the code. Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/
Excellent look and feel, eager to see it in live. On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Daniel Veillard <veillard@redhat.com>wrote:
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 10:50:42AM -0400, Mike Burns wrote:
On Thu, 2012-09-20 at 21:30 +0800, Daniel Veillard wrote:
Is it enough to mention "ASL2.0" in the footer and link to a licensing page, like the current oVirt.org website does? Or should we say more?
Saying it's OpenSource under "ASL2.0" with a link is sufficient sure !
thanks Garrett :-)
Daniel
See other part of this thread -- we have projects in oVirt that are *not* ASL 2.0. ovirt-node is GPL2 and content on the site and wiki are something else as well, iirc.
I wasn't arguing for a licence, just arguing for it to be clarified before suggesting downloading the code.
Daniel
-- Daniel Veillard | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ daniel@veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list Arch@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch
-- With Regards, RK, +91 9840483044
participants (9)
-
Carl Trieloff -
Daniel Veillard -
Dave Neary -
Garrett LeSage -
jwildebo＠redhat.com -
Leslie Hawthorn -
Mike Burns -
R.Kanagaraj (RK) -
Richard Fontana