> I must say I'm a little disappointed about the current discussion on
> how the downloads are currently organised. The current layout was
> discussed with numerous members of the webteam, both on and off-list
> before it was implemented, and was done so based on feedback from
> users and third parties who were able to provide useful hints through
> their own dealings with users and potential users.
>
> The original download area was confusing. We had links on the
> homepages that pointed to source code and windows binaries. We had
> multiple pages linking to related projects, and we had a download page
> that linked into parts of our FTP site, as well as a largely unmanaged
> list of third party sites. We regularly received emails asking
> where/what people needed to download.
>
I agree that the current page is better. I (mistakenly) thought that
the information form (the one that was/is not required) was presented on
downloads of the packages listed in the community section. I'm sorry to
have caused so much strife...
I do believe that the current strategy was better, and with your recent
clarification on upgrades/maintenace of the one-click installers, I'm in
favor of pushing them. I wasn't aware of Josh's (Berkus) reasoning with
regard to getting more "non core" stuff in the install, and I think that
makes sense as well.
I personally am not a fan of the commercial distributions being anything
more than a simple download (i.e., I think that the form, though not
required, isn't a good thing - from the community perspective), but I
think I'm in the minority, so I'll shut up about it.
In defense of myself, I don't think I ever intimated that any form
asking for information is/was required....
Dave, on a more personal note. I applaud your initiative and all the
work I am sure that it took to make sure everything was seamless and
integrated as a whole. I think that it does make stuff easier to find,
and will - overall- provide the community with a better experience. The
applause goes to anyone that helped as well :-)
thanks
> The revised strategy included a number of ideas to improve matters:
>
> - *All* external download links should point to /download, except
> where intentionally pointing to a specific package.
>
> - Browsing of the FTP area should be a last resort for the user, never
> something we direct them to do.
>
> - All third-party products and add-ons etc. should be moved into the
> new software catalogue.
>
> - All third party 'non-community-standard' PostgreSQL distributions
> (e.g. Postgres Plus, BitNami, Bizgres) would be moved to a secondary
> list under the main server downloads.
>
> - 'Community standard' PostgreSQL distributions would be given
> top-most listing on the download page, categorised by operating
> system. These packages come from postgresql.org and a variety of third
> party sites.
>
> - Within each operating system category, downloads would be listed in
> order of ease of use for the complete novice and then alphabetically.
> This is because it was perceived that the majority of 'what do I
> download' questions came from the real novices, for whom a one-click
> installer is easier to understand than a long list of RPMs, DEBs or
> ports, most of which they won't need. The more experienced users will
> naturally choose the platform-native packages anyway, as that's what
> they will be looking for.
>
> And guess what? It's worked. *All* the feedback I've received has
> commented on how it's far, far easier to find the appropriate
> downloads now, and since the changes were implemented, I don't think
> I've seen a single 'what/where do I download' email.
>
>
--
Chander Ganesan
Open Technology Group, Inc.
One Copley Parkway, Suite 210
Morrisville, NC 27560
919-463-0999/877-258-8987
http://www.otg-nc.com
--
Sent via pgsql-www mailing list (pgsql-www@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-www
No comments:
Post a Comment