Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions

From: pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>,"Jan Wieck" <janwieck(at)yahoo(dot)com>,"PostgreSQL-development" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: contrib vs. gborg/pgfoundry for replication solutions
Date: 2004-04-24 15:53:52
Message-ID: 18419.24.91.171.78.1082822032.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers
> "Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> writes:
>> I don't agree with this, since mirrors are web mirrors ... but I do like
>> the 'Contrib' pointing to gborg/projects ...
>
> Yeah, I like the contrib link idea too.  Much of the recent discussion
> comes down to gborg not being visible enough.
>
> However ... how do we handle things once pgfoundry is online too?
>
> (I suppose two links labeled "Old Contrib" and "New Contrib" might serve
> as a forcing function to get projects to migrate over ;-))
>

If there is going to be a change, i.e. Great Bridge is going away, and
being replaced with pgfoundary, I would suggest that you notify everyone
of a date and make it happen. Conversely, on pgfoundary, make a link to
gborg calling it "old projects" or something like that.

Take a look at this mock-up:
http://www.mohawksoft.com/PostgreSQL.html

(I am not a good web developer, I just moved a few things around, but I
hope you get what I'm trying to say)

A good web design makes no assumption that the visitor knows anything
about you. Like "mirrors" or "download," whis would tend to confuse first
time visitors. A single "Download" link should take the user to a page
that explains http/ftp and provides the various source links. Similarly, a
"Contrib" should take the user to a single place, gborg now, pgfoundary
later. Pgfoundary can then direct them to gborg if the project they are
searching for is not there.

The main problem with hard to use or "cluttered" web sites is that techies
like ourselves tend to put too much up front. Simple is better. Open up a
browser window on www.PostgreSQL.org. Don't resize window, assume 1024x768
screen, and maybe 3/4 or 2/3 of the screen is taken by the browser Window.
What do you see?

You have to scroll to see gborg and the odbc driver and replication, two
very important projects. All the visual clues needed to find things need
to be seen in that first window or people will not see them. In my screen,
the bottom says "User Survey" and "Websites" There are no visual clues
that something like gborg would show up if I scrolled down.

Yes, you can "The user should just scroll down," but they don't. Period.
It is like the first paragraph in a news article, if you don't grap the
user there, you won't.

Lastly there is grouping and relevence. Why is gborg lower on the page
than "User Survey?" Isn't gborg more important to the users than the user
survey?  Why are there two links to gborg, one under websites and the
other under gborg, abd both are under the scroll line. Why is there a link
to "mailing list archives" under websites and as a top level link on the
menu?

All this critisizm aside, I generally like the look of the website, even
thought the elephant banner doesn't line up with the PostgreSQL banner :-)
It is just that the content and the presentation can be streamlined,
taking out redundant links and info, removing logically similar choices
i.e. "Download" and "Mirrors," adding "Contrib," and organizing more
important stuff at the top and down the middle, with less relvent stuff to
the right.



In response to

pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stephan SzaboDate: 2004-04-24 16:11:47
Subject: Re: Do we prefer software that works or software that looks good?
Previous:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2004-04-24 15:40:22
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] What can we learn from MySQL?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group