Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Oliver Heimlich
Hello,

during OctConf I have brainstormed with Carnë to make the list of Forge
packages [1] more accessible to the user. The current problems with the
list are:
 * It is just a list of package names, which are often not
meaningful—especially for acronyms (fpl, lssa, stk, ltfat, …). Users who
don't know the package have to read the description to understand its
purpose.
 * The package description can be unfolded on the page, but the
usability is bad (all collapsed by default whenever you enter the
page—thus can't be skimmed).
 * It looks boring (gray). You can't see that you can do great stuff
with the packages.
 * Having no structure at all if confusing. We tried to edit categories
for the packages, but that is not easy and doesn't help much.

Altogether, the current page does not invite the user to explore for new
packages.

Now I have prepared a first draft for a new version of this page, see
[2]. The basic ideas of the new design are:
 * A tighter, two-column design (links are closer to the package name)
 * Short descriptions for all packages are visible by default. Note that
these are even shorter than the current package descriptions to give a
quick overview.
 * Pictures give some orientation on the page, allow one to easily
identify a particular package, demonstrate the topic, and make it look
less boring.

If you like the new design, these are the next steps towards implementation:
 1. All packages need a “short description”. I suggest to use the
“Title” tag in the DESCRIPTION file for that purpose, which (AFAIK) is
used nowhere else and matches the purpose. The “short descriptions”
should follow the conventions for the first sentence in a documentation
string [3] and should not list the following boilerplate phrases: The
[Packagename] package/toolbox is a library of functions that allows one
to [XXX] for Octave. Instead it should be short and just read: [XXX]
 2. All packages need an icon. Luckily I have already prepared some ;-)
The idea is that the icon is independent of the package release and is
maintained by the Octave Forge maintainer (Carnë) and must be provided
only once (ideally by the package author). The icon should present the
topic of the package to new users, should be easily recognized by
specialists in the field, and ideally is a screenshot of some output
produced by the package. In the example [2], the secs*d packages have no
such icons and show a placeholder. Since it is a time consuming task to
prepare icons for all packages, the chosen ones certainly are not
perfect. Please provide betters ones if possible.
 3. I have already prepared patches for project-web and generate_html.
The transition should be a one time change and not affect the release
process of packages. Especially the individual package pages will not be
altered. The change will only affect the overview page of packages.

If you are interested, I can present more details. But first I want to
know your opinion on this proposal.

Best regards
Oliver


[1] http://octave.sourceforge.net/packages.php
[2] http://octave.ln0.de/htdocs/packages.php
[3]
https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/Documentation-Tips.html

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

marco atzeri-2
On 13/10/2015 22:17, Oliver Heimlich wrote:
> Hello,
>
>
> If you are interested, I can present more details. But first I want to
> know your opinion on this proposal.
>
> Best regards
> Oliver

Very Very Nice

Much more appealing and informative than old one

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Doug Stewart-4
In reply to this post by Oliver Heimlich
s.

If you are interested, I can present more details. But first I want to
know your opinion on this proposal.

Best regards
Oliver


[1] http://octave.sourceforge.net/packages.php
[2] http://octave.ln0.de/htdocs/packages.php
[3]
https://www.gnu.org/software/octave/doc/interpreter/Documentation-Tips.html


Wow  this is great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

--
DASCertificate for 206392

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

jbect
In reply to this post by Oliver Heimlich
Le 13/10/2015 22:17, Oliver Heimlich a écrit :
> If you are interested, I can present more details. But first I want to
> know your opinion on this proposal.

Oliver,

This is a great idea.

Here are a few suggestions :

a) Move "Renamed or moved packages" and "Unmaintained packages" to
separate pages ?

b) Improve the layout on wide screen by using two or three columns
(responsive column design) ?

c) Perhaps include the description text in the mouseover popup of the
package name ?

c) For the "details" pages, what do you think of this alternate design
design : http://kriging.sourceforge.net/htmldoc ?

@++
Julien


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Carlo de Falco-2
In reply to this post by Oliver Heimlich

Hi,

I like the new design very much!

On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:17, Oliver Heimlich <[hidden email]> wrote:

> 2. All packages need an icon. Luckily I have already prepared some ;-)
> The idea is that the icon is independent of the package release and is
> maintained by the Octave Forge maintainer (Carnë) and must be provided
> only once (ideally by the package author).

why not just require to add an "icon.png" file in each package tarball ?

c.



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Carlo de Falco-2
In reply to this post by jbect

On 14 Oct 2015, at 08:01, Julien Bect <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Le 13/10/2015 22:17, Oliver Heimlich a écrit :
>> If you are interested, I can present more details. But first I want to know your opinion on this proposal.
>
> Oliver,
>
> This is a great idea.
>
> Here are a few suggestions :
>
> a) Move "Renamed or moved packages" and "Unmaintained packages" to separate pages ?
>
> b) Improve the layout on wide screen by using two or three columns (responsive column design) ?
>
> c) Perhaps include the description text in the mouseover popup of the package name ?
>
> c) For the "details" pages, what do you think of this alternate design design :http://kriging.sourceforge.net/htmldoc ?
>
> @++
> Julien

I pretty much agree with all of Julien's suggestions.

In addition, what about also adding a link to a wiki page either besides the "download" and "details" links or in the "details" page?

Many packages already have their own wiki page, the list is on the main page or can be accessed from here:
http://wiki.octave.org/Category:Octave-Forge

c,




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Carnë Draug
On 14 October 2015 at 09:46, Carlo De Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I like the new design very much!
>
> On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:17, Oliver Heimlich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>> 2. All packages need an icon. Luckily I have already prepared some ;-)
>> The idea is that the icon is independent of the package release and is
>> maintained by the Octave Forge maintainer (Carnë) and must be provided
>> only once (ideally by the package author).
>
> why not just require to add an "icon.png" file in each package tarball ?

Why would have the package maintainer have to include the icon every time?
I can't imagine that the icon would change very often so it makes more
sense to do it only once (we probably shouldn't change it very often
either since that would be confusing).
Also, it would require less changes to the generate_html package.

On 14 October 2015 at 09:51, Carlo De Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
> [...]
> In addition, what about also adding a link to a wiki page either besides
> the "download" and "details" links or in the "details" page?
>
> Many packages already have their own wiki page, the list is on the
> main page or can be accessed from here:
> http://wiki.octave.org/Category:Octave-Forge
>

That list is only a small part of the packages we have.  And the wiki
page of many of those is mostly for developers (list of missing
functions and options), so not the best to fit here.

Instead, the index page of each package could have links to any
page that the package developer wants to (it is possible to have a
url field on the DESCRIPTION file although I thing generate_html
drops those).

Carnë

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Oliver Heimlich
On 14.10.2015 19:49, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 09:46, Carlo De Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the new design very much!

Thank you (and others) very much for the kind words and the feedback. It
is fun to work on it when there is so much interest :-)

>> On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:17, Oliver Heimlich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. All packages need an icon. Luckily I have already prepared some ;-)
>>> The idea is that the icon is independent of the package release and is
>>> maintained by the Octave Forge maintainer (Carnë) and must be provided
>>> only once (ideally by the package author).
>>
>> why not just require to add an "icon.png" file in each package tarball ?
>
> Why would have the package maintainer have to include the icon every time?
> I can't imagine that the icon would change very often so it makes more
> sense to do it only once (we probably shouldn't change it very often
> either since that would be confusing).
> Also, it would require less changes to the generate_html package.

If we can agree on having a doc/icon.png in every package's repository,
the change to generate_html package can be neglected and we should do
whatever is the best solution in the long term.

Having it inside the packages means that the package maintainer has
better control and Carnë won't have extra work in the future (with
regard to new packages or icon changes).

Having it inside project-web means that we have better control over the
overview page design as a whole. I believe that the latter is easier to
maintain given the number of “community maintained” packages.

> On 14 October 2015 at 09:51, Carlo De Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> In addition, what about also adding a link to a wiki page either besides
>> the "download" and "details" links or in the "details" page?
>>
>> Many packages already have their own wiki page, the list is on the
>> main page or can be accessed from here:
>> http://wiki.octave.org/Category:Octave-Forge
>>
>
> That list is only a small part of the packages we have.  And the wiki
> page of many of those is mostly for developers (list of missing
> functions and options), so not the best to fit here.

True, there are only a few wiki pages that could serve as a package
documentation for users.

> Instead, the index page of each package could have links to any
> page that the package developer wants to (it is possible to have a
> url field on the DESCRIPTION file although I thing generate_html
> drops those).

IMHO the package documentation should be part of the package and be
included in the release as a manual, cf. the Desert Island Test (in DFSG).

Another strategic issue that we should consider is, whether Octave Forge
shall be the home for the packages or whether they may be scattered over
the internet, with websites, FAQs, examples and repositories elsewhere
(e.g. Github).

AFAIK the Url in the DESCRIPTION file is only used by downstream
distributors. It should contain the package's page on Octave Forge,
shouldn't it?

On 14.10.2015 08:01, Julien Bect wrote:
> Le 13/10/2015 22:17, Oliver Heimlich a écrit :
> Here are a few suggestions :
>
> a) Move "Renamed or moved packages" and "Unmaintained packages" to
> separate pages ?

This could be done as a second step, because it is not directly related.

> b) Improve the layout on wide screen by using two or three columns
> (responsive column design) ?

I have improved the responsiveness a little bit. Now you can fit 3
columns in FullHD.

> c) Perhaps include the description text in the mouseover popup of the
> package name ?

Although this could be easily implemented, I am not a fan of popups or
automatically resizing elements, because they usually get in my way.
Also you should consider that most packages do not have a lengthy
description at the moment, so this would not show additional info in
most cases.

> d) For the "details" pages, what do you think of this alternate design
> design : http://kriging.sourceforge.net/htmldoc ?

The main difference compared to the current design is that the function
overview is part of the initial page. I like it, but am unsure whether
this is better or not. Could be confusing for beginners, because they
get too much information.

The graphical design is similar. Having a maximum width helps on high
resolutions and wide screens. We could improve the octave-forge.css later.

Oliver

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Alexander Barth-3
Dear Oliver,

This is great, especially the windows logo!

Maybe it would be good to have the logo also as SVG files (if they are not too big).
High-resolution screen are increasingly common.

I noticed that you used the netCDF logo from Unidata for the ncarray package. I am not sure if we can use that for the "official" page. Maybe it is the best if the package maintainers (myself for ncarray) provides your a logo. Or maybe some volunteers to have consistently themed logos.

Thank for you great work!

Alex


On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 10:32 PM, Oliver Heimlich <[hidden email]> wrote:
On 14.10.2015 19:49, Carnë Draug wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 09:46, Carlo De Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I like the new design very much!

Thank you (and others) very much for the kind words and the feedback. It
is fun to work on it when there is so much interest :-)

>> On 13 Oct 2015, at 22:17, Oliver Heimlich <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>>> 2. All packages need an icon. Luckily I have already prepared some ;-)
>>> The idea is that the icon is independent of the package release and is
>>> maintained by the Octave Forge maintainer (Carnë) and must be provided
>>> only once (ideally by the package author).
>>
>> why not just require to add an "icon.png" file in each package tarball ?
>
> Why would have the package maintainer have to include the icon every time?
> I can't imagine that the icon would change very often so it makes more
> sense to do it only once (we probably shouldn't change it very often
> either since that would be confusing).
> Also, it would require less changes to the generate_html package.

If we can agree on having a doc/icon.png in every package's repository,
the change to generate_html package can be neglected and we should do
whatever is the best solution in the long term.

Having it inside the packages means that the package maintainer has
better control and Carnë won't have extra work in the future (with
regard to new packages or icon changes).

Having it inside project-web means that we have better control over the
overview page design as a whole. I believe that the latter is easier to
maintain given the number of “community maintained” packages.

> On 14 October 2015 at 09:51, Carlo De Falco <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> [...]
>> In addition, what about also adding a link to a wiki page either besides
>> the "download" and "details" links or in the "details" page?
>>
>> Many packages already have their own wiki page, the list is on the
>> main page or can be accessed from here:
>> http://wiki.octave.org/Category:Octave-Forge
>>
>
> That list is only a small part of the packages we have.  And the wiki
> page of many of those is mostly for developers (list of missing
> functions and options), so not the best to fit here.

True, there are only a few wiki pages that could serve as a package
documentation for users.

> Instead, the index page of each package could have links to any
> page that the package developer wants to (it is possible to have a
> url field on the DESCRIPTION file although I thing generate_html
> drops those).

IMHO the package documentation should be part of the package and be
included in the release as a manual, cf. the Desert Island Test (in DFSG).

Another strategic issue that we should consider is, whether Octave Forge
shall be the home for the packages or whether they may be scattered over
the internet, with websites, FAQs, examples and repositories elsewhere
(e.g. Github).

AFAIK the Url in the DESCRIPTION file is only used by downstream
distributors. It should contain the package's page on Octave Forge,
shouldn't it?

On 14.10.2015 08:01, Julien Bect wrote:
> Le 13/10/2015 22:17, Oliver Heimlich a écrit :
> Here are a few suggestions :
>
> a) Move "Renamed or moved packages" and "Unmaintained packages" to
> separate pages ?

This could be done as a second step, because it is not directly related.

> b) Improve the layout on wide screen by using two or three columns
> (responsive column design) ?

I have improved the responsiveness a little bit. Now you can fit 3
columns in FullHD.

> c) Perhaps include the description text in the mouseover popup of the
> package name ?

Although this could be easily implemented, I am not a fan of popups or
automatically resizing elements, because they usually get in my way.
Also you should consider that most packages do not have a lengthy
description at the moment, so this would not show additional info in
most cases.

> d) For the "details" pages, what do you think of this alternate design
> design : http://kriging.sourceforge.net/htmldoc ?

The main difference compared to the current design is that the function
overview is part of the initial page. I like it, but am unsure whether
this is better or not. Could be confusing for beginners, because they
get too much information.

The graphical design is similar. Having a maximum width helps on high
resolutions and wide screens. We could improve the octave-forge.css later.

Oliver


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Oliver Heimlich
On 15.10.2015 20:41, Alexander Barth wrote:
> Dear Oliver,
>
> This is great, especially the windows logo!

I didn't want to risk trademark issues and have chosen the picture of a
regular window. Any similarity with dead or living operating systems is
purely coincidental. ;-)

> Maybe it would be good to have the logo also as SVG files (if they are
> not too big).
> High-resolution screen are increasingly common.

This is not possible for all of the current icons, because there is no
vectorized source material in all cases. It should be possible for many
of them, however is it really worth the extra effort to repeat the work
on all icons and prepare quality vector graphics?

> I noticed that you used the netCDF logo from Unidata for the ncarray
> package. I am not sure if we can use that for the "official" page.

I thought it falls under the software's license
(http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/docs/copyright.html):
“… granted the right … to distribute … supporting documentation …”

However, we should definitely double check the licenses. I have a list
of all image material that I used. The licenses range from public
domain, (L)GPL, GFDL, CC-BY(-SA) to CC0 (see below). We have to properly
attribute some of the original authors and still have to figure out a
sane way to do that (maybe a footnote on the web site?).

> Maybe
> it is the best if the package maintainers (myself for ncarray) provides
> your a logo. Or maybe some volunteers to have consistently themed logos.

Yes, definitely. Please go ahead and prepare better logos for your
packages. I thought it would be good to have some prepared, because
otherwise there would be a lot of packages having none and then the
whole idea would be spoiled.

I guess it is wishful thinking to have a voluntary designer who can
prepare a consistently themed set of package icons for us. Though I'd
love that. In practice it is already hard to find any pictures in
documentation for scientific software. You need some material to start with.

Oliver


P.S. This is the full list of third party material used in the current
draft.

* bim.png: From Octave Wiki
http://wiki.octave.org/File:Fiume_sol_pdesurf.png
* cgi.png: Own work (with cliparts from LibreOffice)
* communications.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Hamming_distance_3_bit_binary_example.svg
* control.png: From Octave Wiki
http://wiki.octave.org/File:Inverted_pendulum_new.png
* data-smoothing.png From function reference for “regdatasmooth”
* database.png: Own work and the PostreSQL logo
* dataframe.png: From Octave Wiki http://wiki.octave.org/Dataframe_package
* dicom.png: From Wikimedia Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Knie_mr.jpg
* divand.png: From
http://modb.oce.ulg.ac.be/mediawiki/index.php/File:Divand_realistic_example.png
* doctest.png: Own work and Wikipedia Commons (LGPL)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crystal_Project_bug.png
* econometrics.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Okuns_law_differences_1948_to_mid_2011.png
* fem-fenics.png: From Octave Wiki
http://wiki.octave.org/File:HyperElasticity.png
* financial.png: Own work
* fits.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GPL2+)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:SAOImage-DS9.png
* fpl.png: From function reference for “pdesurf”
* fuzzy-logic-toolkit.png: From function “heart_disease_demo_1”
* ga.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Computational.science.Genetic.algorithm.Crossover.Two.Point.svg
* general.png: From Wikimedia Commons (LGPL3, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gnome-applications-other.svg
* generate_html.png: Remixed some (LGPL3, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/GNOME_Desktop_icons
* geometry.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Teorema_de_desargues.svg
* image.png: From function reference for “imtransform”
* image-acquisition.png: From function reference for “getsnapshot”
* instrument-control.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:9_pin_d-sub_connector_male_closeup.jpg
* interval.png: From function reference for “@infsup/plot”
* io.png: From Wikimedia Commons (LGPL2.1+)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Crystal_Clear_mimetype_spreadsheet.png
* level-set.png: From function reference for “ls_setxor”
* linear-algebra.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Matrix_pattern_qtl3.svg
* lssa.png: From Journal of Statistical Software (CC-BY 3.0)
http://www.jstatsoft.org/article/view/v011i02
* ltfat.png: From function reference for “demo_phaseret”
* mapping.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Map_coordinate_system.gif
* mechanics.png: From function reference for “mdsim”
* miscellaneous.png: From Wikimedia Commons (LGPL3, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gnome-preferences-other.svg
* missing.png: Based on Wikimedia Commons (LGPL3, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Gnome-emblem-package.svg
* mpi.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NetworkTopology-FullyConnected.svg
* msh.png: From OctConf 2015 slides
* mvn.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NormalVert2d.png
* nan.png: Own work
* ncarray.png: From http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/
* netcdf.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Image_annotations.jpg
* nurbs.png: From OctConf 2015 slides
* ocs.png: From Octave Wiki http://wiki.octave.org/File:AND_BW.png
* octclip.png: From Function reference for “oc_polybool”
* octproj.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:201globe.svg
* odepkg.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Slope_Field_4b.png
* optics.png: From Function reference for “zernike_cartesian”
* optim.png: Own work (Rastrigin function)
* optiminterp.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sst_dayly.png
* parallel.png: Own work
* quaternion.png: Own work
* queueing.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Simple_markov_chain.svg
* signal.png: From Wikimedia Commons (CC0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Aliasing_between_a_positive_and_a_negative_frequency.png
* sockets.png: Own work
* sparsersb.png: From librsb website (LGPL3+) http://librsb.sourceforge.net/
* specfun.png: From Wikimedia Commons (public domain)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ZetaFunction.png
* splines.png: From Wikimedia Commons
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spline_interpolation.svg
* statistics.png: From Function reference for “boxplot”
* stk.png: From project website https://sourceforge.net/projects/kriging/
* string.png: Own work
* struct.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ER_Diagram_MMORPG.png
* symbolic.png: Own work
* tisean.png: From Function reference for “c2g”
* tsa.png: From “tsademo”
* vrml.png: From Function demo for “vmesh”
* windows.png: From Wikimedia Commons (GFDL, CC-BY-SA 3.0)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Freilichtmuseum_Josef_Stetschnigs_Gemischtwarenhandlung_14082007_01.jpg


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Alexander Barth-3
Dear Oliver,

This is not possible for all of the current icons, because there is no
vectorized source material in all cases. It should be possible for many
of them, however is it really worth the extra effort to repeat the work
on all icons and prepare quality vector graphics?

Indeed, we might just recommend this for new logos.
 

> I noticed that you used the netCDF logo from Unidata for the ncarray
> package. I am not sure if we can use that for the "official" page.

I thought it falls under the software's license
(http://www.unidata.ucar.edu/software/netcdf/docs/copyright.html):
“… granted the right … to distribute … supporting documentation …” 

However, we should definitely double check the licenses. I have a list
of all image material that I used.
OK, I see that you are well aware of this.
 
The licenses range from public
domain, (L)GPL, GFDL, CC-BY(-SA) to CC0 (see below). We have to properly
attribute some of the original authors and still have to figure out a
sane way to do that (maybe a footnote on the web site?).
Yes, I think that this would a good idea or on a separate page.

 

> Maybe
> it is the best if the package maintainers (myself for ncarray) provides
> your a logo. Or maybe some volunteers to have consistently themed logos.

Yes, definitely. Please go ahead and prepare better logos for your
packages. I thought it would be good to have some prepared, because
otherwise there would be a lot of packages having none and then the
whole idea would be spoiled.
Yes, I see. It is much easier to get your idea across with actual logos and placeholders.

I guess it is wishful thinking to have a voluntary designer who can
prepare a consistently themed set of package icons for us. Though I'd
love that. In practice it is already hard to find any pictures in
documentation for scientific software. You need some material to start with.
OK, I will see if I can get a idea to make a logo for the ncarray packages. Your really did an excellent job for the logos as they are very descriptive.

Regards,
Alex
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Octave-Forge: Proposal to improve package overview page

Carnë Draug
Hi everyone

I have finally pushed Oliver Heimlich proposal for the Octave Forge
package overview page which everyone praised.  It is now live at

  http://octave.sourceforge.net/packages.php

I believe everything is well, but do report if you find something broken.

If you would like to make further improvements, or comments, please
either report a new patch or comment at

  https://savannah.gnu.org/patch/?8787

The source for the Octave Forge project is also on mercurial

  http://hg.code.sf.net/p/octave/project-web

Carnë