On 5/7/07, Robert Bradshaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On May 6, 2007, at 12:37 AM, William Stein wrote: > I really like new, clean user-targeted design. I might be coming a > little late into the discussion, but I did have some additional > thoughts. > > I might add a couple of links to some of the graphics (which wouldn't > visually change the page at all). Like to the GNU icon, a link either > to something on the gnu website (though often their treatment of the > topic is a bit heavy-handed) or preferably to a page containing that > quote about the Sylow theorems and a link to browsing the entire > source. The python one could link to the python page (for people > coming from the mathematics side of things) and the "Use most > matematics software..." could link to a list of interfaces (perhaps > this list could be merged in with the "components." I'm not sure "Be > curious" could link to a relevant page in the tutorial.
It would be easy -- and it is tempting -- to add dozens of links all over the page. Almost every word could be a link, e.g., to the mathematica website, to the MAGMA website, to the Singular website, to the FSF, etc. I have purposely avoided doing so. I think with some very careful thought adding some links in a bar on the left or right side later would be a better choice. Also, I think it's important to not have lots of links that take people away from our site -- we want them to stay reading until they get to the bottom of the page. Distraction is way too easy when one is surfing the web... > I think the text for the download blurb makes it a bit confusing as > to what SAGE actually is. Perhaps something along the lines of > > SAGE is available for Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux. SAGE also makes > it very easy to install or build from source most major open source > math programs. Download SAGE here. Um, that's what the download blurb already says -- they only change you suggest is to put the word "also". > I think the "Try SAGE online" link(s) need to be much more prominent, > perhaps even placed somewhere in that last paragraph. Great idea -- I've added it. > > (2) does the text on the front page reasonably convey what > > SAGE is to somebody who say has never heard of programs > > like GAP and PARI, and just wants to know if SAGE might > > be for them? > > Yes, though perhaps it could do a better job of presenting itself to > people who do use these systems. I'm not sure how redundant this > would be with the next paragraph, but perhaps something could be > added to the second paragraph to the effect that SAGE leverages/ > includes "existing high-quality open source math packages such as..." I've added something like that with a link to the components page. I think that link is OK, since it is to our own site, and it has links to all the other sites. Plus it avoids having to pick which of the dozens of components we list. > > (3) Does the front page text seem to much like sales talk? > > Compared to Maple or Mathematica's web pages it's nothing > > (those pages are gut-wrenchingly obnoxious), > > but it might still be too much. > > I don't think so. Cool. Regarding David Harvey's comment about the picture of the GNU logo, my feeling is that it: * just plain looks good there on the page * is a symbol of GPL'd software, which SAGE is; SAGE fits very well with their mission and _does_ include numerous GNU project libraries, e.g., GSL. * FSF might in fact prefer that we give them credit, as we do by including their logo prominently. * But David has an important point. I doubt the target audience will be misled though. -- William --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://sage.scipy.org/sage/ and http://modular.math.washington.edu/sage/ -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
