----- Original Message ----- > From: "James W. MacDonald" <jmac...@uw.edu> > To: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtene...@fhcrc.org>, "Julian Gehring" > <julian.gehr...@embl.de> > Cc: "Michael Lawrence" <lawrence.mich...@gene.com>, bioc-devel@r-project.org > Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:26:13 AM > Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package > websites > > Given that we have an ongoing problem with people inadvisedly > clicking > and installing things, is there a good rationale for allowing them to > do > so?
I tend to agree with this... > > Perhaps the landing page for each package should be stripped of links > and replaced with some indication of the availability for each > package > on the various operating systems. There could also be a note > indicating > that people can install using biocLite(). > There is such a note, but it's often ignored, as you point out. Dan > Best, > > Jim > > > > On 7/22/2014 11:48 AM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote: > > Seems like there are two problems, first that the release and devel > > pages look similar, but more importantly that people are > > downloading and installing from the package pages when they should > > be using biocLite(). > > > > I am open to the suggestions for making the release/devel pages > > look more different from each other, but I think something needs > > to be done about the second problem as well. Perhaps a popup that > > comes up when you click on a package tarball saying "The best way > > to install this is with biocLite(); are you sure you want to > > download it?" > > > > Whatever we do probably won't happen until after BioC2014. > > > > Dan > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehr...@embl.de> > >> To: "Hervé Pagès" <hpa...@fhcrc.org>, "Michael Lawrence" > >> <lawrence.mich...@gene.com>, "Vincent Carey" > >> <st...@channing.harvard.edu> > >> Cc: bioc-devel@r-project.org > >> Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:07:29 AM > >> Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel > >> package websites > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> Tooltips that appear while hovering over selected links are easy > >> to > >> miss. This alone will likely not be clear enough. We should > >> convey > >> the > >> information that the entire website presents a different version > >> of > >> the > >> package. > >> > >> The idea of a notification box that can be made visible by the > >> individual user seems tempting. One can combine this with an > >> optional > >> cookie, to remember the state between browser sessions. > >> > >> Changing the layout of the devel page itself will also be helpful > >> to > >> make the distinction more pronounced. Hopefully we could approach > >> this > >> in a way that maintains the nice design of the bioc website. > >> > >> Best > >> Julian > >> > >> > >> On 21.07.2014 21:50, Hervé Pagès wrote: > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> In addition to these suggestions, how about using a special > >>> background > >>> color for package landing pages in devel? > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> H. > >>> > >>> On 07/21/2014 07:32 PM, Michael Lawrence wrote: > >>>> Or an unobtrusive "notification box" that drops down from the > >>>> top > >>>> of the > >>>> page, saying something like "this is devel"; there would be a > >>>> dismiss > >>>> button and a checkbox for whether to show again. The user is > >>>> free > >>>> to > >>>> simply > >>>> ignore it and proceed as normal. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Vincent Carey > >>>> <st...@channing.harvard.edu> > >>>> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> how about a tooltip that reads "installation via biocLite() is > >>>>> the > >>>>> recommended approach to Bioconductor software > >>>>> acquisition, other approaches may lead to inconsistent > >>>>> package-sets" > >>>>> that > >>>>> appears when a reader hovers over a tarball. i would imagine > >>>>> that > >>>>> this is > >>>>> how the "wrong package" gets installed, by manually using an > >>>>> inappropriate > >>>>> tarball. > >>>>> > >>>>> wrong documentation is not so easy but the doc on the devel > >>>>> branch might > >>>>> have a different tooltip cautioning the readers to be sure they > >>>>> want to > >>>>> read the doc on the devel version. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Julian Gehring > >>>>> <julian.gehr...@embl.de> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Can we make the package websites for the devel and release > >>>>>> version of a > >>>>>> package more distinguishable? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> To elaborate on this: In the past, I have seen several users > >>>>>> having > >>>>>> problems with using bioconductor because they ended up on the > >>>>>> wrong > >>>>>> page > >>>>>> (mostly the devel page when they would have needed the > >>>>>> release). > >>>>>> This > >>>>>> resulted in getting the wrong documentation or installing the > >>>>>> wrong > >>>>>> package. The pages are well designed, and there is no reason > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> change > >>>>>> this. However, the websites for the devel and release version > >>>>>> of a > >>>>> package > >>>>>> look almost identical, and that these two get confused seems > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> happen to > >>>>>> many users (me included). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> If you search for a package within the bioc website, the > >>>>>> release > >>>>>> version > >>>>>> always comes first in the search results. If you are coming > >>>>>> from the > >>>>>> outside (e.g. google), this may not be the case. In fact, > >>>>>> googling > >>>>>> a few > >>>>>> packages names often returned only the devel page in the top > >>>>>> 10 > >>>>>> search > >>>>>> results. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> What are the feelings regarding this? We could add a header > >>>>>> section on > >>>>> the > >>>>>> devel page that states that this is an unstable version not > >>>>>> meant to be > >>>>>> used in production settings, and provide a link to the > >>>>>> respective > >>>>>> release > >>>>>> version? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Best wishes > >>>>>> Julian > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > >>>> > >>> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > >> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > > > > -- > James W. MacDonald, M.S. > Biostatistician > University of Washington > Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences > 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100 > Seattle WA 98105-6099 > _______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
