offtop (sort of..) - About rockbox.org

[Devilturnip]

Personally, I think the left side menu is perfectly adequate. However, I agree that the front page might do with a few changes.

I go with the philosophy that the front page should be, by default, a description of the product, what its uses, and its advantages. After all, it's the first thing new users will see. Once they're hooked, then they can use navigation to get to more relevant information, such as update lists and news items.

The current Rockbox front page design is obviously built with current Rockbox users in mind, as the first thing seen is updates. This means less clickage and more convenience for loyal users.

Both of these philosophies are perfectly valid, but if you're trying to grow your install base, I'd go with the first option. It's just a bit more user friendly.

[Llorean]

Well, Rockbox is more a "project" than a "product" in my mind at least. I think the goal is to grow the contributor base, rather than the install base. It's a community thing.

[pabouk]

Llorean, you simply rejected everything but I think that a really good suggestion was to include a direct link to FAQ(s) to the front page. Something for the beginners to click on.

[Llorean]

I didn't reject everything. Things I haven't commented on are just that: Things I have not commented on. They are not summarily rejected just because I have not spoken about them.

[Devilturnip]

Well, Rockbox is more a "project" than a "product" in my mind at least. I think the goal is to grow the contributor base, rather than the install base. It's a community thing.

I kind of figured that. Also, since Rockbox requires a certain degree of technical aptitude to use, any new users ought to at least be able to figure out what's going on front page wise. Still, if the project ever gets to a point where it wants to widen the user base, some site reorganization might be in order.

[L[0ne]R]

I can only assume you mean the few tools that are used for installing Rockbox for certain players, such as fwpatcher.exe or ipodpatcher.exe.

No, I mean UiSimulator and EZPWS, that I found in the skinning tutorials.

To clarify: I am not angry. I just find your post lacking clarity because you seem to not be very clear on what data should or shouldn't be needed by most users, or why we have the additional data set up as a wiki, or even what files could even reasonably have their own download link.

Well, your tone seemed to me really irritated. Im not saying that some data is useless, I'm saying that it should be better organized - people are looking for, lets say, skinning tutorial and manual on how to install RockBox  with different purposes, so these documentations should be put in different categories so they would be easier to find not browsing through the whole page. And yes, I'm still not clear on why can't some files have a separate link in "Downloads" section and what's wrong with the way I suggested to organize documents.

Still, if the project ever gets to a point where it wants to widen the user base, some site reorganization might be in order.

Yes, maybe if you (Llorean) think it's not necessary to reorganize everything now, but at least just keep in mind that later it might be critical to do so.

[Llorean]

The UISimulator is compiled from the official source package. EZWPS is not an official tool, and until it becomes one, directly linking it from the downloads section would be a bad idea as it implies official support that is not actually offered.

And yes, I'm still not clear on why can't some files have a separate link in "Downloads" section and what's wrong with the way I suggested to organize documents.

I can't really understand this sentence. Are you saying you dont understand why I object to putting files that are already available from the daily build page as their own seperate links, or why I'm objecting to unofficial files being included as seperate links?



As for the installation manual, it too is on the daily page. Which only, from your most recent post, leaves the concepts of Tutorials. Seeing as the wiki changes any time *any* user feels something is out of date, new tutorials spring up all the time. A "Tutorials" page could be created, but again if it's not made in such a way that its *clearly* in the wiki, it gives the impression that they are official instructions for doing something.

Any time a user is IN the wiki, they should clearly know that they are in the wiki, which means much/all of the information provided may be written by other users like them. It is not necessarily official, or even accurate, and should they have problems with it they are able to fix it themselves.


There is a distinct difference between static information (the manual) and dynamic content (the wiki) and this is part of the reason I feel it is quite important that they stay differentiated.

[L[0ne]R]

The UISimulator is compiled from the official source package. EZWPS is not an official tool, and until it becomes one, directly linking it from the downloads section would be a bad idea as it implies official support that is not actually offered.

Are you saying you dont understand why I object to putting files that are already available from the daily build page as their own seperate links, or why I'm objecting to unofficial files being included as seperate links?

Any time a user is IN the wiki, they should clearly know that they are in the wiki, which means much/all of the information provided may be written by other users like them. It is not necessarily official, or even accurate, and should they have problems with it they are able to fix it themselves.

Why are you objecting to unofficial files being included as separate links, but you already gave me the answer below, thank you. What confuses me is that why can't it be improved only because the documentations are unofficial. Isn't it better to notify users that these documentations are not all official, than leaving it like that? Or at least rename "wiki" to something like "Unofficial (wiki)", because not everyone might know what "wiki" means.

There is a distinct difference between static information (the manual) and dynamic content (the wiki) and this is part of the reason I feel it is quite important that they stay differentiated.

Well, that answers some of my questions. I didn't really know what exactly is "wiki", but now it's clear.

[Llorean]

Wiki us "Community modifiable collaborative documentation." Any user can ask for permission (and will receive it) and can change the documentation at any time. How good or bad it is is entirely dependent upon the users who choose to update it.

[LinusN]

I agree that navigating the Wiki could be quite daunting for a new user. Many, if not most, of the topics in the Wiki are not linked from anywhere.

Organizing the documentation/wiki and keeping the information structured and correct requires quite some work. I'll be glad if someone wanted to tidy it up.

However, bear in mind that the Rockbox site is not only for users, but for developers as well. This is probably a good reason to keep having two index pages for the documentation, one for the users and one for the developers.