Bugzilla – Full Text Bug Listing
| Summary: | Helios Downloads Page Feedback | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Community | Reporter: | Ian Skerrett <ian.skerrett> | ||||||||||||
| Component: | Website | Assignee: | phoenix.ui <phoenix.ui-inbox> | ||||||||||||
| Status: | RESOLVED FIXED | QA Contact: | |||||||||||||
| Severity: | normal | ||||||||||||||
| Priority: | P3 | CC: | blueser, bugs.eclipse.org, caniszczyk, cdtdoug, cedric.brun, deepakazad, eclipse-bugs, eclipse, Ed.Merks, elias, gunnar, irbull, johan.wannheden, milesparker, mknauer, nathan, prakash, remy.suen, stephan.herrmann | ||||||||||||
| Version: | unspecified | ||||||||||||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||||||||||||||
| Hardware: | PC | ||||||||||||||
| OS: | Windows XP | ||||||||||||||
| Whiteboard: | |||||||||||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||||||||||
|
Description
Ian Skerrett
With 10 packages, the page is already overly cluttered. With 13 packages, IMO you will need a major overhaul of the page for it to even be usable. We could also consider consolidating some of the packages. For instance, I am convinced that the Eclipse IDE for Java Developers and the RCP package must contain a large overlap. (In reply to comment #1) > With 10 packages, the page is already overly cluttered. With 13 packages, IMO > you will need a major overhaul of the page for it to even be usable. +1 > We could also consider consolidating some of the packages. For instance, I am > convinced that the Eclipse IDE for Java Developers and the RCP package must > contain a large overlap. +1 To add more fuel ... I'd kick "Eclipse Classic" as well. BTW, what are the top 5 downloaded packages? There's nifty counters next to the packages with the download counts, there also sorted that way as well. In any case here are the numbers. Eclipse IDE for Java EE Developers - 1,183,920 Eclipse IDE for Java Developers - 481,719 Eclipse IDE for C/C++ Developers - 215,152 Eclipse for PHP Developers - 185,648 Eclipse IDE for Java and Report Developers - 41,518 (In reply to comment #3) > There's nifty counters next to the packages with the download counts, there > also sorted that way as well. Thanks for the pointer. But the sorting seems to be broken. Eclipse Classic is at the bottom of the list but should be 2nd based on this. Anyway, I agree with Denis that we should reduce the number of packages at least on this page. There can be more packages but they should be either collapsed in an initially not visible area or on a separate page. I would set a goal to show just 5 "features" packages. (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > There's nifty counters next to the packages with the download counts, there > > also sorted that way as well. > > Thanks for the pointer. But the sorting seems to be broken. Eclipse Classic is > at the bottom of the list but should be 2nd based on this. > > Anyway, I agree with Denis that we should reduce the number of packages at > least on this page. There can be more packages but they should be either > collapsed in an initially not visible area or on a separate page. > > I would set a goal to show just 5 "features" packages. I doubt we will get agreement on what packages to move off the main page, so frankly I think we should focus on other improvements. btw, Classic is automatically put at the bottom to encourage people to use the other packages. > I doubt we will get agreement on what packages to move off the main page
Can we get an agreement on what the maximum number of packages the main page can list before becoming unusable? We started with 5, then 7, then 10, now 13. If I extrapolate, next year we'll have 16, and in two years, 20. Finding a solution today that will scale beyond 20 packages would be optimum.
Realistically, since no one likes to read, listing 13 packages (let alone 20) on a single page makes it likely that the page will become a disaster.
(In reply to comment #5) > I doubt we will get agreement on what packages to move off the main page, so > frankly I think we should focus on other improvements. We don't need an agreement on specific packages. That's a decision made by the community and reflected in download numbers. As Denis said in comment #6, we need an agreement on how many "featured" packages we show on the main download landing page. > btw, Classic is automatically put at the bottom to encourage people to use the > other packages. If the goal really is to promote the other packages why not remove it at all? On a side note, I was a strong opponent of removing it previously. But I now see more value in promoting packages to facilitate better cross-project adoption. (In reply to comment #6) > Realistically, since no one likes to read, listing 13 packages (let alone 20) > on a single page makes it likely that the page will become a disaster. Not more than 5. In the last few days i've been working on a new downloads page. http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/index-helios.php *Please don't tell me the links don't work, I know* I wanted to make the page cleaner without losing the list of packages. Comments? Created attachment 166972 [details]
Seems to be some clipping going on
Looks good overall, but there is some clipping when running on Chrome on Ubuntu.
It's definitely a nice improvement over what we have now. :-) Personally, I fully agree that we must offer less packages. I've heard that humans can track 5+2 things max., so I support narrowing it down to that range. Also, I still like the way the NB download page has the comparison of packages prominently featured (http://netbeans.org/downloads/index.html). On Linux, FF/3.5.9 does a good job. I see the clipping Wayne sees with Konqueror/4.4.2. Also, we should mention that with this new layout, we're removing the top-10 popular projects. (In reply to comment #11) > On Linux, FF/3.5.9 does a good job. I see the clipping Wayne sees with > Konqueror/4.4.2. I think i know how to fix this, thanks for the report. > > Also, we should mention that with this new layout, we're removing the top-10 > popular projects. I didn't want to get rid of it totally, but move it to the projects download page. I like the simplicity of the new page. I am not thrilled by the dark banner at the top. The rest of the site uses a lighter style and I think we should be consistent on the download page. Some other comments: - I would move the 'Details' link over to the left hand column. I think this will make it cleaner for the download button. If you want you could move the download size over to be under the Download link. - I think we need some type of heading for the 'Other Downloads'. Right now you have a line, which is fine, but it seems like it is lacking some type of explanation? I also think the 'other downloads' need some type of bullet to prefix the name. They just don't seem to be framed very well. - We need a link the the 'details' page for the other downloads. - I like the ability to change the platform selection. It would be nice to give it a nicer graphic treatment. Kind of looks like a Windows 3.0 selection box in the middle of a nice web page. Yuk fyi, the Linux IDE package will only be available for Linux platform. However, I think we should show it all the time but have some way to 'gray' it out. - in general the top 5 downloads seem small to me? Can we increase the font size? *** Bug 315795 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** My biggest complaint is the segregation of packages to "Other Packages". I'd like to see all the packages listed the same (and to get a good look at their download numbers). Why are packages listed in a particular order? Why isn't the PHP package listed? Isn't that one of our more popular ones? (In reply to comment #17) > Why are packages listed in a particular order? There listed by download numbers, with Eclipse SDK being put in manually. > Why isn't the PHP package listed? Isn't that one of our more popular ones? The PHP Package for RC3 hasn't received a +1 from its maintainer so its not listed. Whatever the design eventually looks like, please use as little (java-) scripting as possible to make it accessible to all consumers (e.g. has to be usable in lynx opened on a server 80x24). :-) I wonder if it would make sense to use the 'Compare Packages' page (http://www.eclipse.org/downloads/packages/compare-packages) as the download page. It provides an excellent comparison of various packages without too much text. Maybe we can simply add 'Download' buttons and size of the download for each package at the bottom of the table. This page is also much more democratic as it highlights all packages almost equally. I liked the new layout, I think it's definitely an improvement, congratulations. I just missed a link to the "New and Noteworthy" page... Since it is not related to any specific package, maybe it coule be placed next to "Compare Packages"? Nice simplification! One thing that doesn't make sense to me is the "Packages for.." [WIndows 32..] The use of a popup and its location suggests that changing that popup would somehow change the options that you get below -- which is of course (hopefully) not the case. So even though the older version has a lot of redundency, I think it was actually better. Perhaps you could have a bunch of small icons to the right or provide the auto-detected platform and have another way for users to select their OS target. The gray box as a whole is a bit awkward because it looks like it has table headers (i.e. Compare Packages, Older Versions" but those are actually links and there is a just a single "Download" column. Is there a better way of calling out the JRE stuff except for the red "Attention" bit? BTW, I can't help but note that the "Classic" version that **everyone seems so keen on getting rid of** ;) has three times the downloads of any other release. (*) The default download is Windows. I hope it will be changed to the OS of the user, as in the Galileo page (*) The Combo looks a little ugly on Mac, probably its better on windows? (*) I'd personally prefer the old C/C++ icon than the new one :-) (In reply to comment #22) > BTW, I can't help but note that the "Classic" version that **everyone seems so > keen on getting rid of** ;) has three times the downloads of any other release. You were looking at the release candidates, weren't you? These numbers are a bit misleading because the "Classic"-SDK is available at Helios+0 whereas the other packages are available 7 days later together with the Helios release. In other words: The "Classic" has always a margin of 7 days. By looking at the released Galileo packages you will get another picture. (In reply to comment #24) > (In reply to comment #22) > > BTW, I can't help but note that the "Classic" version that **everyone seems so > > keen on getting rid of** ;) has three times the downloads of any other release. > By looking at the released Galileo packages you will get another picture. Yes, you're right. It's only the second most popular download there. ;-P * I don't see any added value with the big purple "Eclipse Download" banner, it almost looks like an external advertissement and it eats a lot of space. * The "Eclipse" label is repeated everywhere and is only noise here, once you're on the eclipse website, on the "eclipse downloads" page you should be pretty sure you're going to download Eclipse. Removing all the "Eclipse" from the packages label would make things clearer and focus on the aim of the package instead of the fact that it's Eclipse based. * As an Eclipse commiter I like being able to have the download numbers but I'm not sure an end user really cares at this point, putting all those numbers in this main page only has sense If you want to compare with the other packages, like one would decide to pick the JEE instead of the Java one because there are more downloads ? Having the download numbers on another page (the compare one ? ) would remove un-necessary text. * Each package did a great job at working on nice logos, it's a shame the end user is not seing those just because it's not in the top five, adding the icons back would not take more space. Now my opinion on the segregation : - It can have a huge effect on the community dynamics and it should not be taken lightly, after having worked the whole year on the components integration for the modeling package I'm quite taken aback that we'll only have "second row" place on the download page and I guess many modeling commiters or packagers may have the same feeling. - It is based on the number of downloads which is quite twisted, packages with the most download numbers will be the Eclipse historic consummers : Java based technologies, it would be a shame that the Eclipse download page would not reflect the fact that Eclipse is a lot more than just a Java IDE. We could think about other metrics, community involvement and activity, but none will look fair. I can only imagine some kind of "domain based" categorization ... - why 5 packages, why not 6, 7 or 10 ? It doesn't looks like we're gaining a lot of space if you count the "Other Packages" line, the "Other Packages" don't have their logo but still takes place, on my laptop the five "top packages" are taking 300px, the 6 others + the "Other Packages" line are taking 280px (and the banner 140 px !) . To me the previous version looked more cluttered not because of the number of packages, but because a lot of textual content was associated : description, links for every platform, in that sense their already is a gain in this new version but It doesn't looks like the segregation is helping much. ps : "Classic" means nothing in term of domain focus, I'd rather have it renamed especially now that there is no textual description. What makes an product "Classic" or not ? I agree with Cedric. The new page is quite nice because it eliminates the sea of text. What's not nice is that it screams out "we have a caste system of fist and second class package" without even saving significant space! Like Cedric, I'm taken aback that we should have a certain set of expectations participating in Helios, and then when it's just about done, those expectations could be arbitrarily changed. The Helios participants of the modeling projects are expecting a first class download on the main page. Perhaps that's an unreasonable expectation, but it's one we have for Helios. If our expectations should be changed, we would expect to be informed about that earlier in the cycle so we can factor it into our decisions to participate. Note that for the modeling package we are faced analogous issues, i.e., a huge package with all-that-is-modeling jammed into it isn't all that useful. So for Helios we're producing a much slimmer package (faster to download) that makes it far easier later to find all the additional things you also want. > - why 5 packages, why not 6, 7 or 10
Why 5? If you look at the current downloads page, there are distinct jumps in downloads popularity:
Java EE: 1.7M downloads = 40%
Classic: 802K 19% -- ~50% fewer than Java EE
Java: 778K 18% -- ~50% fewer than Java EE
C/C++: 342K 8% -- ~50% fewer than Classic/Java
PDT: 294K 7% -- ~50% fewer than Classic/Java
Reporting: 64K 1.5% -- ~80% fewer than C/PDT
Modeling: 55K 1.3% -- ~80% fewer than C/PDT
RCP: 51K 1.2% -- ~80% fewer than C/PDT
Pulsar: 39K <1%
SOA: 24K <1%
The jump from PDT to Reporting is quite large; Reporting downloads being about 80% fewer than PDT's. The result creates two lists of 5 and 6 packages respectively. Two nice, concise lists.
Have a look at mozilla.org - there are three projects in the spotlight on page 1, three on page 2, and all the rest are in the View All.
This is not about first class or second class. Let's forget for a moment that everyone wants their favourite package in the spotlight, and let's think of the casual downloader who is presented with eleven choices for download. We're simply structuring the page according to what our users want to see.
(In reply to comment #23) > (*) The default download is Windows. I hope it will be changed to the OS of the > user, as in the Galileo page There are some unresolved O/S detection issues that should be resolved in time for Helios. > (*) The Combo looks a little ugly on Mac, probably its better on windows? Can you attach a screenshot? I don't have a mac to test on. (In reply to comment #26) > * I don't see any added value with the big purple "Eclipse Download" banner, it > almost looks like an external advertissement and it eats a lot of space. > Agreed, in the next iteration this section will shrink. > * The "Eclipse" label is repeated everywhere and is only noise here, once > you're on the eclipse website, on the "eclipse downloads" page you should be > pretty sure you're going to download Eclipse. Removing all the "Eclipse" from > the packages label would make things clearer and focus on the aim of the > package instead of the fact that it's Eclipse based. > We've had this conversation before and while I agree that the word Eclipse appears alot on the page its not something we can really get away from. > - why 5 packages, why not 6, 7 or 10 ? It doesn't looks like we're gaining a > lot of space if you count the "Other Packages" line In the next iteration i'll make all packages equal weighting but they will still be ordered by download count. You may not agree with that sorting but as Denis mentioned we need to cater to what people want to download. > > ps : "Classic" means nothing in term of domain focus, I'd rather have it > renamed especially now that there is no textual description. What makes an > product "Classic" or not ? I'm thinking Eclipse SDK 3.6 has a better ring to it. Thanks for your post Cedric, it was well thought out and i appreciate your honest and constructive feedback. (In reply to comment #30) > > ps : "Classic" means nothing in term of domain focus, I'd rather have it > > renamed especially now that there is no textual description. What makes an > > product "Classic" or not ? > > I'm thinking Eclipse SDK 3.6 has a better ring to it. The Classic naming was already discussed in another bug and the Eclipse Project PMC agreed to keep the Classic name. They are responsible for the package, so they get the final say on the name. (In reply to comment #31) > (In reply to comment #30) > > > ps : "Classic" means nothing in term of domain focus, I'd rather have it > > > renamed especially now that there is no textual description. What makes an > > > product "Classic" or not ? > > > > I'm thinking Eclipse SDK 3.6 has a better ring to it. > > The Classic naming was already discussed in another bug and the Eclipse Project > PMC agreed to keep the Classic name. They are responsible for the package, so > they get the final say on the name. Yeah that's bug 273930. 42 Comments and conclusion was to keep things as they are. Still it is useful for people trying to figure out the background if not the reasoning behind all of that. But this is especially relevant as I would bet that a very large proportion of the people downloading classic are in fact Modeling project users, or Users of other technologies. In other words sophisticated users. Why it would surprise people that there are many many users of Eclipse who are smart enough to know what they want to do with the tool and know that Eclipse can be easily customized to so what they want (In reply to comment #31) > (In reply to comment #30) > > > ps : "Classic" means nothing in term of domain focus, I'd rather have it > > > renamed especially now that there is no textual description. What makes an > > > product "Classic" or not ? > > > > I'm thinking Eclipse SDK 3.6 has a better ring to it. > > The Classic naming was already discussed in another bug and the Eclipse Project > PMC agreed to keep the Classic name. They are responsible for the package, so > they get the final say on the name. Yeah that's bug 273930. 42 Comments and conclusion was to keep things as they are. Still it is useful for people trying to figure out the background if not the reasoning behind all of that. (Alright I guess I'm tilting at windmills here.) But this is especially relevant as I would bet that a very large proportion of the people downloading classic are probably in fact Modeling project users, or -- almost by definition -- users of other technologies. In other words sophisticated users. So I agree that it would be a travesty for this change to happen and then for Modeling to be dropped off the main download list. Cédric and others have put an enormous amount of work into meeting the goals that had been set for Helios by creating a dynamic solution to these issues that we're trying to solve by forcing people into a one-stop shopping model. If the goal is to kill off Classic then you need to respect the fact that those uses need to go somewhere and I don't think its fair to say that they are all Java EE or even RCP users. Why does it seem to surprise people that there are many many users of Eclipse who are smart enough to know what they want to do with the tool and know that Eclipse can be easily customized to so they can get what they want? What is really surprising to me is that on seeing this the response seems to be not that the users are voting with their feet but that they are doing something they shouldn't be and we need to reeducate them. Someone needs to say this so I guess I will. I think that the goals of this whole package pushing thing and the idea of supporting discovery mechanisms are not just orthogonal, they're actually working at cross purposes. What's the basic message here? "Download Eclipse and open up a gateway to all of these (x-flavored) amazing technologies" or "download the perfect Java EE IDE"? OK, sorry if my grumpy morning is affecting my tone. :) (In reply to comment #32) Miles, not sure if I actually follow you on some of your comments. Let me state a few things first: 1) Classic is not being killed off. It is staying the same and we are keeping the same name. 2) Nathan has responded and will make a new revision to the download page based on Cedric's comments about the 'Other' category. 3) Our download page gets used by a LOT of different developers, some are very knowledgeable about Eclipse, so not so much. We are trying to appeal to a wide audience, which is a challenge. > Someone needs to say this so I guess I will. I think that the goals of this > whole package pushing thing and the idea of supporting discovery mechanisms are > not just orthogonal, they're actually working at cross purposes. What's the > basic message here? "Download Eclipse and open up a gateway to all of these > (x-flavored) amazing technologies" or "download the perfect Java EE IDE"? OK, > sorry if my grumpy morning is affecting my tone. :) Essentially it is both. :-) My hope is that we are doing the 80-20 rule. For 80% of the users we have a pre-package solution that can come get. We know Java EE development is one of the most popular use of Eclipse, so I do hope people come and get 'download the perfect Java EE IDE' or the 'perfect PHP IDE', etc. However, there is also the case where you want to open the world to a lot of other possibilities. This is why we have the discovery UI and things like the Marketplace Client. I hope this makes sense. :-) Hi Ian, (In reply to comment #33) > Essentially it is both. :-) My hope is that we are doing the 80-20 rule. > For 80% of the users we have a pre-package solution that can come get. We > know Java EE development is one of the most popular use of Eclipse, so I do > hope people come and get 'download the perfect Java EE IDE' or the 'perfect PHP > IDE', etc. However, there is also the case where you want to open the world to > a lot of other possibilities. This is why we have the discovery UI and things > like the Marketplace Client. > > I hope this makes sense. :-) It does in the sense of general strategy and I do understand that there is an inherent challenge here. I think my point is that we need to recognize that there is an inherent tension here and hopefully the more successful the MarketPlace / Disvovery / AppStore approach is the more tension there will be -- but mostly that I think this is.. a) a good thing b) something that we should be promoting c) pushing the package approach over the discovery approach will actually prevent or at least slow down the adoption of the discovery approach which after all you and the foundation have put a tremendous amount of effort into and d) I'm not so sure that I think that the number really is 80%, or at least would be if things were on an even playing field. So perhaps we need more data points. Ian is the one that has the most intimate knowledge of actual user base and I think you're in the process of interpreting those surveys. So maybe this is already clear and settled with users. Are the vast majority treating Eclipse as the tier-1 (IDE target) kind of usage? If so then is it worthwhile or appropriate to try and encourage those folks to use the discovery approach?(That's not meant rhetorically.) So I guess where I think I'm feeling confused/flummoxed is in where and how the trade-offs are handled and how and if we want to get form package world to discovery world. What about offering an explicit "Eclipse Discovery Build" with the Classic components along with the Modeling Discovery download? By explicit I don't mean "over 18". ;) When will RC4 be available from the new download page? Ideally, the download page should be generated with the build so that people can find the latest build without having to search for it with Google :-) (In reply to comment #35) > When will RC4 be available from the new download page? Ideally, the download > page should be generated with the build so that people can find the latest > build without having to search for it with Google :-) RC4 Comes out Friday. The Developers Tab has been up to date for at least 3 years with all milestone builds + RCs. (In reply to comment #36) > RC4 Comes out Friday. The Developers Tab has been up to date for at least 3 > years with all milestone builds + RCs. Yes, *last* Friday. Kim Moir sent the mail on Saturday, the 5th of June. http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/S-3.6RC4-201006031500/index.php > > RC4 Comes out Friday. The Developers Tab has been up to date for at least 3
> > years with all milestone builds + RCs.
>
> Yes, *last* Friday.
This bug is about the Helios download page, so RC4 refers to Helios RC4, which is Friday the 11th of June.
If people want the Classic 3.6RC4 they should be able to get it from the Eclipse project's download page.
(In reply to comment #37) > (In reply to comment #36) > > > RC4 Comes out Friday. The Developers Tab has been up to date for at least 3 > > years with all milestone builds + RCs. > > Yes, *last* Friday. Kim Moir sent the mail on Saturday, the 5th of June. > > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops/S-3.6RC4-201006031500/index.php There is a small but important difference: The Eclipse Platform Project is the first that needs to be releases (+0) - usually on a Friday. Other Eclipse projects that depend on the Eclipse Platform (and *only* the platform) are releasing on Monday (+1)... and exactly one week after the Eclipse Platform release all projects participating in the Helios Simultaneous Release are ready for download. And that's why *this* Friday is the Helios RC4 release. The exact schedule can be found here: http://wiki.eclipse.org/Helios/Simultaneous_Release_Plan#Milestones_and_Release_Candidates Hope that clarifies it a bit. > Denis >Have a look at mozilla.org - there are three projects in the spotlight on page >1, three on page 2, and all the rest are in the View All. That's a pretty good example, Mozilla decided to add a product here based on political decision, they wanted to push Thunderbird and added it on the main web page. I'm pretty sure there is a huge gap between FF download numbers and Seamonkey's... It's not about download statistics at all but about the project direction and perception by the users. I'm just saying that this is a strong decision, we could say : "ok, let's show to the world Eclipse is not *just* a Java IDE and push the PHP, C and Java Script one." > Nathan >We've had this conversation before and while I agree that the word Eclipse >appears alot on the page its not something we can really get away from. Couldn't we, the package maintainers, rename the packages ? (In reply to comment #40) > > Nathan > >We've had this conversation before and while I agree that the word Eclipse > >appears alot on the page its not something we can really get away from. > > Couldn't we, the package maintainers, rename the packages ? That would be the logical place to change the title yes, the Pulsar package for instance makes no mention of the word Eclipse. I think we would want all the packages to come to some sort of consensus on the issue. It'll look messy if 5 of the 10 packages have eclipse and the rest do not. But that's my 2c. (In reply to comment #41) > (In reply to comment #40) > > > > Nathan > > >We've had this conversation before and while I agree that the word Eclipse > > >appears alot on the page its not something we can really get away from. > > > > Couldn't we, the package maintainers, rename the packages ? > > That would be the logical place to change the title yes, the Pulsar package for > instance makes no mention of the word Eclipse. > > I think we would want all the packages to come to some sort of consensus on the > issue. It'll look messy if 5 of the 10 packages have eclipse and the rest do > not. But that's my 2c. Well, I think it's important to keep Eclipse on the C/C++ package. I'd say, at this point, just leave it. The colors could be more consistent with the rest of eclipse.org, but there isn't anything else really wrong with it. The preselection of the operating system is nice. I like to propose following changes: - Group "Download" and size - Use icon instead of the word "Download" - The area of the download link should be as large as possible and should include the package title and its icon - The selected operating system can be easily overlooked. Maybe we could use some additional icons. - I like to have (maybe smaller) icons for all packages. (In reply to comment #34) I think it is too early to say which is the preferred method: discovery or pacakge. The Helios release is really the first time we have had a general discovery capabilities and I am thrilled Modeling package, Mylyn and MPC are using it. I would expect over time more and more projects and packages will being to adopt the discovery method. As that happens, it would not surprise me to see the packages being less important. It is something we definitely need to watch. > So perhaps we need more data points. Ian is the one that has the most intimate > knowledge of actual user base and I think you're in the process of interpreting > those surveys. So maybe this is already clear and settled with users. Are the > vast majority treating Eclipse as the tier-1 (IDE target) kind of usage? If so > then is it worthwhile or appropriate to try and encourage those folks to use > the discovery approach?(That's not meant rhetorically.) Without a doubt the data shows the majority of Eclipse users are for the IDE. The MPC is being targeted at those types of users and Mylyn uses Discovery for those types of users. > So I guess where I think I'm feeling confused/flummoxed is in where and how the > trade-offs are handled and how and if we want to get form package world to > discovery world. What about offering an explicit "Eclipse Discovery Build" with > the Classic components along with the Modeling Discovery download? By explicit > I don't mean "over 18". ;) Maybe we will get to, you download one thing and the Discovery becomes the packages. The release repository is somewhat in this manner already. Something we should look at for the next release. Afternoon all, I've pushed the next iteration of the page taking some of your feedback into consideration. - Smaller Banner at the top to increase usable space - Simplified the drop down for OS selection and also moved it above the download links. Since 64 bit O/S is hard to detect we've opted to just detect your platform and provide both links if they are available. - Removed any notion of a first or second class download. All rows are displayed the same. - Changed the colors of links to be more consistent with our website. Thanks for the feedback so far! That's looking quite clean. It's especially nice that users don't have to scroll to get access to all potential downloads. I think putting the 32bit and 64bit targets under downloads itself is a nice compromise. (I assume you know that platform detect isn't working yet..) A couple of very small things --because of all of the various banners etc.. anything we can do to unclutter would be helpful. 1) ..arguably you don't need the "Hint:" -- if you just use a different background color to highlight I think the JRE and license message stand out well enough. 2) Did you consider using the light purple that is part of the new project template page as the color for the "Download" backdrop with black text for just the word "downloads"? (Since it is obvious I think that they are for Eclipse.) Perhaps with some little backdrop graphics that suggests downloading. see e.g. http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/. No packages for me on Mac OS X. Created attachment 171437 [details]
Firefox 3.5.9 on Linux
Screenshot taken with
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100402 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.9
I have several problems rendering this page and the OS detection doesn't work (yet).
After switching manually to Linux (index-helios.php?osType=linux) the page seems to show up correct.
(In reply to comment #47) > No packages for me on Mac OS X. Chris can you try refreshing there was a glitch that stopped them from displaying that i've fixed. It looks like auto-detect for Mac is working for me now. I just tried firefox and Safari. (In reply to comment #45) > Afternoon all, > - Simplified the drop down for OS selection and also moved it above the > download links. Since 64 bit O/S is hard to detect we've opted to just detect > your platform and provide both links if they are available. On OSX when clicking the 64-bit link I get the regular 32-bit build. (In reply to comment #46) > I think putting the 32bit and > 64bit targets under downloads itself is a nice compromise. (I assume you know > that platform detect isn't working yet..) I've made improvements to the OS detection. If anyone is having OS Detection issues please attach their user agent string to this bug PLEASE! http://www.useragentstring.com/ > A couple of very small things --because of all of the various banners etc.. > anything we can do to unclutter would be helpful. > 1) ..arguably you don't need the "Hint:" -- if you just use a different > background color to highlight I think the JRE and license message stand out > well enough. I think this is really about personal taste, and to new users this Hint could be quite valuable. > 2) Did you consider using the light purple that is part of the new project > template page as the color for the "Download" backdrop with black text for just > the word "downloads"? (Since it is obvious I think that they are for Eclipse.) > Perhaps with some little backdrop graphics that suggests downloading. see e.g. > http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/. Since I designed that background yes I did consider it, the designer in me wants to keep things moving forward, but i can see how its nice to keep consistency. I also played with just having the word 'Downloads' but in the end I found it too short. Sorry but I'm just not convinced that removing it is more then just a personal preference. (In reply to comment #51) > (In reply to comment #45) > > Afternoon all, > > - Simplified the drop down for OS selection and also moved it above the > > download links. Since 64 bit O/S is hard to detect we've opted to just detect > > your platform and provide both links if they are available. > > On OSX when clicking the 64-bit link I get the regular 32-bit build. Thanks for the tip, i think i've got this sorted out. (In reply to comment #48) > Created an attachment (id=171437) [details] > Firefox 3.5.9 on Linux > > Screenshot taken with > Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100402 > Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.9 > > I have several problems rendering this page and the OS detection doesn't work > (yet). > After switching manually to Linux (index-helios.php?osType=linux) the page > seems to show up correct. Markus can you attach a full shot of your browser so i can see how other things are flowing on the page? Thanks for the user agent string, i'll check into this as well Created attachment 171444 [details]
full screenshot
Because you were asking... here is the full screenshot.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100402 Ubuntu/9.10 (karmic) Firefox/3.5.9
And note that
* even the 64-bit links are pointing to the 32-bit packages and
* the package size is on the next line if the package name gets too long
(In reply to comment #52) > > A couple of very small things --because of all of the various banners etc.. > > anything we can do to unclutter would be helpful. > > 1) ..arguably you don't need the "Hint:" -- if you just use a different > > background color to highlight I think the JRE and license message stand out > > well enough. > > I think this is really about personal taste, and to new users this Hint could > be quite valuable. I don't mean remove the Hint -- I agree that it's useful. I just mean remove the text that says "Hint:" or replace it with something else. It just seems awkward somehow as it is. > > 2) Did you consider using the light purple that is part of the new project > > template page as the color for the "Download" backdrop with black text for just > > the word "downloads"? (Since it is obvious I think that they are for Eclipse.) > > Perhaps with some little backdrop graphics that suggests downloading. see e.g. > > http://www.eclipse.org/Xtext/. > > Since I designed that background yes I did consider it, the designer in me > wants to keep things moving forward, but i can see how its nice to keep > consistency. :) Yeah, I'm a consistency junkie. Actually, the graphics and color on the main page look really nice -- perhaps if you usesd that but with plainer balck text...ok enough micro-critiqueing! > I also played with just having the word 'Downloads' but in the end I found it > too short. Sorry but I'm just not convinced that removing it is more then just > a personal preference. Yeah, I almost didn't make that suggestion. Things are looking better. Some of the package icons aren't transparent and look weird (see picture). Created attachment 171467 [details]
Package Icons Lack Transparency
I'm starting to like the new page :) Since the "classic" package has lost it's special status there's no longer a direct link to http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ is that by intention? At least on the "Development Builds" tab I think this is an important navigation route that's a bit too much hidden now. My 0.02 € A minor layout issue: "Eclipse IDE for Linux Developers (includes Incubating components), 120 MB" is too long for one line, causing a line break so the contents flows out of its assigned box. Created attachment 171725 [details]
screenshot of overflowing Linux C/C++ Developer package text
(In reply to comment #59) > I'm starting to like the new page :) > > Since the "classic" package has lost it's special status there's no longer > a direct link to > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ > is that by intention? At least on the "Development Builds" tab I think > this is an important navigation route that's a bit too much hidden now. > My 0.02 € > This link always seems to be a point of contention and i'll admit i totally forgot about it. I've added it back in for the Classic Package. > A minor layout issue: > "Eclipse IDE for Linux Developers (includes Incubating components), 120 MB" > is too long for one line, causing a line break so the contents flows out > of its assigned box. I've fixed these layout issues. Thanks for the reports. (In reply to comment #59) > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ Also it would really be nice if this page wasn't from 1999. We've worked very hard at building the Nova skin and now updating the download page. When a user is greeted with the page above its like they've hit the Way Back Machine. My 2c anyways :D (In reply to comment #62) > (In reply to comment #59) > > http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/ > > Also it would really be nice if this page wasn't from 1999. We've worked very > hard at building the Nova skin and now updating the download page. When a user > is greeted with the page above its like they've hit the Way Back Machine. I agree that that page is not a suitable first contact page. However, as an early adopter of SDK builds it gives me exactly what I need. So thanks for re-adding a link to it :) Yes, layout and usability are progressing nicely, kudos to all =) But I still miss a link to "New & Noteworthy" info... any chance this appears somewhere? I always like to see what changed from the last version to the previous one, and I forward this kind of info here to my colleagues to help attract attention to the new versions. IMHO it's the best way to promote a new version. (In reply to comment #64) > Yes, layout and usability are progressing nicely, kudos to all =) But I still > miss a link to "New & Noteworthy" info... any chance this appears somewhere? I > always like to see what changed from the last version to the previous one, and > I forward this kind of info here to my colleagues to help attract attention to > the new versions. IMHO it's the best way to promote a new version. Mh, indeed, there is no direct link. You'll find corresponding links on each "details" page. One note: for component "Eclipse Platform" the document for version 3.5 is linked! (In reply to comment #65) > You'll find corresponding links on each "details" page. The links on the details pages will be updated just before the release on June 23, because the URLs and N&N pages change until then. If you are looking at the pages *now* you will find some outdated or wrong links that we need to fix in the next one and a half weeks. It's nice, but I don't see where to choose a mirror to download from anymore. Closing this out, were starting up indigo soon. |