William Beebe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Then I would like you to review and contrast GCC Bugzilla > (http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla) with at least two others: Mozilla's > (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org) and Redhat's > (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/index.cgi). Mozilla's is a bit > more organized than GCC's (but not much) and it is organized as a > two-column page with a resonably lucid, short and sweet explaination on > the right. It shares the same ant picture with GCC's, which makes me > wonder if that image isn't part of some core page that comes with the > Bugzilla package.
> The best of the two is the Redhat page. Instead of lots of controls on > the page, it has one to start with (search for a bug), with the more > detailed (and powerful) options located at the top of the page as menu > items. It's also good in that it has both expository information on the > page as well as news that someone looking for bugs might want to read. The Red Hat page is prettier, and I guess the GCC page could use some more orientation information, but they all feel roughly equal to me. (I actually prefer seeing clear links in the text of the page to the menu thing that Red Hat is doing.) But as previously mentioned, I'm not really the person you want reviewing this, most likely. > And if bugzilla is not working out, or if you want some ideas on how to > build better interfaces, there seem to be plenty of open bug tracking > packages on Sourceforge. A quick search for bugzilla produces a nice > long list, and at random I picked phpBugTracker > (http://phpbt.sourceforge.net). Well, the amount of work required to change bug tracking systems or build a new interface on top of Bugzilla is significant; if you're not planning on doing that work or paying someone to do it, it's fairly unlikely there will be any resources to do it. So far as I know, Bugzilla is working out fairly well from the perspective of the people working on GCC, which while not the whole story is at least as important as the bug reporting interface. > And I understand and appreciate that. But when the UI heavy hitters > aren't beating your doors down you either have to appeal to them in > the coummunity or else go and do what I do; look at what's out there > and (re)use design elements. Well, I don't *have* to do anything. GCC works great for what I want. But I think I understand what you're saying. GCC is using Bugzilla because someone not only got fed up with GNATS but volunteered to do all the work required to make the switch and keep things running afterwards. > As I mentioned before, have you thought to ask for help from Redhat? If > everybody looks to gcc as an important core tool, then perhaps those > power users could help with the site. I would say to go and talk to > Apple, that paragon of UI design, but I have no idea how Apple would > react or if it would be a complete waste of time and energy. There are Red Hat and Apple folks on this list. Maybe you can convince them to take such an idea to their companies. I have no idea. Whatever is done, it's very important that it be maintainable five years down the road. That's where single efforts often fail. > You've pointed out the lack of bandwidth to improve it, and I am > sympathetic (believe me, I really am). However, if someone makes a > comment on the look and feel of the site then you should make the > diplomatic equivalent to the comment "do you have a patch" when someone > makes a comment about some "questionable" issue with the compiler. I would generally agree, and that's basically what I'm trying to do here. However, it's also useful to point out to someone with a specific complaint how hard fixing that complaint might be. For example, if the report is "I want to link GCC as a library into my new IDE," people aren't going to just say "do you have a patch" without explaining why that's going to be hard to do. :) > I think we all suffer from Tin Eye Site Design - TESD. But if we don't > bring this issue up here, then where should it be brought up? I'm not saying this is the wrong place to bring it up. It's the only place to bring it up, so far as I know. I just think it's one of those things that can't really be discussed well in negatives. I really appreciated your links above to the other sites that you think are better laid-out; that's positive and presenting a particular improvement that can then be discussed. In general, though, I think it's going to take someone mocking something up and saying "here, I think this is better, what do other people think?" -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
