Looks nice indeed !

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.

IMHO, the license matters at earliest when you're downloading (so not on the front page),

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:18:20PM +0200, jwildebo(a)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 _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board

On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 03:18:20PM +0200, jwildebo(a)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 _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board

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 :-)

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

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(a)veillard.com | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/ http://veillard.com/ | virtualization library http://libvirt.org/ _______________________________________________ Arch mailing list Arch(a)ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/arch