It was exciting to see such an ambitious model proposed for the website, however in addition to previous issues raised about accessibility etc. I would like to give you my initial impression. You may take my commentary as you see fit. I am the sort of fellow that when looking in the beer aisle it is the Bitburger or Sam Adams I tend to notice first because they have words and not fancy paintings, and therefore immediately understandable information. That is not to say other beers might not be good, but relying on visual hook does not help especially when every other bottle has the same swirl of colors. In the proposed website I see nothing at all that interests, except an odd button that says learn more. One should already have some inkling of what the program offers as soon as you land on the website. We are still living uncomfortably with the notion that because ultimately websites are text based and are therefore some how books which need dust covers. While a great deal can be learned from the humble book, the transmitter of knowledge for hundreds of years and one should clearly not overlook such lessons of organization and layout that can be learned from them one must also be cognizant of the lesson of the medium itself that they gave us. For example books from the incunabula period are still safely handleable while many 19th century editions are in perilous shape due to their extremely acidic paper. With web design, it might be the case that such scripting might be the equivalent of such unstable paper. So that being said the current website is pretty solid, but if think people really need more flashiness to it let it not be to the detriment of ease of use or understanding. In the usage of images, it is quite clear and been amply demonstrated that pictures are worth a thousand words, but you must carefully consider what those words are you are conveying. The more cynical side of me sees the opening picture and thinks oh a thing that is for short sighted people. The glasses give the idea of something that requires intense examination. One humorous thing is the TEXT INPUT section. It states it is as easy as ABC. ABC happens to be another music typesetting program. Anyway, a great example of why some additional eyes are always a useful thing for any project. So please do not take this as slamming your efforts as it is not, it is just to say there are a lot of people here who have invested a lot of personal effort in keeping things running here, I am not one of them, but it may be well worth the effort going forward to extract knowledge from them. And I hope you stick with this wonderful program and its users and developers it is always good to have fresh insights and energy.
kind regards, Shane Brandes On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 10:08 AM, Karlin High <gne...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On 11/29/2016 4:47 AM, Urs Liska wrote: >> But I would much more like to see it created by a static site generator, in >> a system where the content can be managed as a Git repository. > > I did a Google serach for "texinfo website generator." Here's one that > reminds me of the LilyPond way of doing things. > > HAUNT: > https://haunt.dthompson.us/ > "Haunt is a hackable static site generator written in Guile Scheme... > Websites written in Haunt are described as purely functional programs > that accept “posts”, text documents containing arbitrary metadata, as > input and transform them into complete HTML pages using Scheme > procedures. Haunt has no opinion about what markup language authors > should use to write their posts and will happily work with any format > for which a “reader” procedure exists." > > Looks like there's a "reader" for texinfo. > https://haunt.dthompson.us/haunt-02-released.html > -- > Karlin High > Missouri, USA > > _______________________________________________ > lilypond-user mailing list > lilypond-user@gnu.org > https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
