On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 12:50 AM, Hervé Pagès <hpa...@fhcrc.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > In addition to these suggestions, how about using a special background > color for package landing pages in devel? > > it makes sense to do this too. > 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 >> >> > -- > Hervé Pagès > > Program in Computational Biology > Division of Public Health Sciences > Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center > 1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514 > P.O. Box 19024 > Seattle, WA 98109-1024 > > E-mail: hpa...@fhcrc.org > Phone: (206) 667-5791 > Fax: (206) 667-1319 > [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel@r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
