In article <Pine.LNX.4.62L.0709231917120.11564(a)linuxproj.ecs.soton.ac.uk>,
John-Mark Bell <jmb(a)netsurf-browser.org> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007, Michael Drake wrote:
> I've started working on the web site again.
> The staging area for the new site is now:
Some general points:
+ The site must be standards compliant (this should be obvious ;)
Yep, I intend to make it so. I have not yet tried validating; it's on my
agenda low, I'll check everything for validity once all the content is
pretty much finalised. (It should all be mostly valid anyway.)
+ I think we should strive to make the site as accessible as
Therefore, in addition to technical standards compliance, we should
try to be WCAG compliant, too. Here's an online checker (warning:
it's slow as hell): http://checker.atrc.utoronto.ca/index.html
OK. I don't mind making it conform to that, however, I currently know next
to nothing about that stuff.
I think the source icon should be more obviously different from the
binary one. Rationale:
1) Invariably, people don't fully read the page -- they just
the thing that most looks like what they want. Thus, making the
source icon more unique would reduce the likelihood of someone
downloading the sources when they actually wanted the NS binary.
2) Use of text within icons is bad. Firstly, it assumes the user
understands the language the icon text was written in. Secondly, it
requires reading, which defeats the pointt of an icon being a
visual hook for the user.
Yep, agreed. The current one was just a place holder. Not entirely sure
what to do for the icon atm, but I have a few ideas.
We should probably mention RISC OS 6 in the requirements for the RISC
version -- I can guarantee that someone will get confused. I'm aware of
the arguments as to whether we're in a position to actively support it,
so it may be better to resolve that question first.
OK. Rationale for not mentioning SIX is that it's included in "RISC OS
5.07 or greater", but it's easily added.
As for the other thing; I don't have RISC OS SIX. I do have a system
that's capable of running it (VA laptop), but I don't want to install
anything like that on it; the RISC OS setup works atm and I need it to
This page is fine.
This page is fine.
See comments about the source icon, above.
I think there should be some mention of the SVN revision number in
relation to the tarball (so as to avoid confusion). Ideally, this will
also be encoded in the tarball name.
OK good idea. If they're to have different names the autobuilder should
delete the previous tarball from the server when it updates the page.
I think NSTheme should have a version number.
OK, I'll add that.
I also think that the themes page link should be more obvious.
OK, I'll tweak it. The themes pages will also be linked from the User
Guide, once I've moved it across, in the Choices section. Ideally, I think
a button to open the themes page should be reinstated on the Choices >
Themes window. That was the ideal place.
This page is fine.
OK, thanks. The haveproblems/overflow-scrollbars.html test case relates to
a few issues on this page, incidentally.
> 2. RISC OS 3.5+ not mentioned as supported. (None of the
> run such a system and they are very old.)
Fine by me. We should probably have an FAQ entry explaining this,
> 7. Packages page has some packages hosted on our site. I think
> we'll only host packages for platforms that don't yet have
> a NetSurf package of the latest release. Is that right?
Presumably. That said, when we make a new release, we shouldn't
own packages for those platforms which package earlier versions (unless,
of course, there's some demand for it due to the platforms' packaging
> 8. There are no packages of development builds for nsgtk
On Linux and BSD platforms, it's pretty common to build from
wait for the distro to package it. Thus I have no problem with this.
> 10. I'm not sure if there's any point in the links to
> stored elsewhere, like the Debian ones. (Should I delete them?)
At the very least, we should make it obvious that there are packages
available in distro repositories. This should prevent people trying to
build from source when they don't need to.
Hmm, OK. I think what we have does that, but I'll make it a bit more
Thanks for all the feedback. :)
Michael Drake (tlsa) http://www.netsurf-browser.org/