Call for designers for our ports website

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
11 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Call for designers for our ports website

Mojca Miklavec-2
Dear MacPorters,

As part of a GSOC project Arjun has been working on great new features
for our web application with information about ports.

The application from last year has been deployed at
    https://ports.macports.org/
while the new testing site is temporarily located at
    http://macports.silentfox.tech/

The website already looks nice, but if we had some talented designers
among our users willing to help us go one step beyond what we have
right now, we would be extremely grateful for either just some advice
or potentially some more extensive help. There are a lot of minor
tweaks that could be done, but neither of us is a designer, and I'm
not able to give any competent advice about how to best improve the
layout.

Here are some concrete examples of subpages:
- http://macports.silentfox.tech/port/root6/
- http://macports.silentfox.tech/port/gnuplot/stats/?days=365&days_ago=0
- http://macports.silentfox.tech/search/?installed_file=&q=root&name=on

Thank you very much in advance,
    Mojca
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Clemens Lang-2
Hi Mojca, Arjun,

On Fri, Jun 12, 2020 at 07:24:49PM +0200, Mojca Miklavec wrote:
> - http://macports.silentfox.tech/search/?installed_file=&q=root&name=on

Please keep in mind that we do value URL stability. Specifically, I've
recently added redirects so that our old ports.php script will now
redirect the various links that are out there on upstream websites to
ports.macports.org, preserving the search terms where possible:
  https://github.com/macports/macports-www/pull/20

It would be appreciated if we could keep the existing URL structure for
ports.macports.org and not yet change it again, but it seems your
changes have modified it.

--
Clemens
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Ken Cunningham
In reply to this post by Mojca Miklavec-2
Just FYI Homebrew has always been opt-out for stats. Nobody seems to have a problem with that sufficient to make them change that policy.

We'll never know if that is why they seem to have 10 x the users on their stats page.

K
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Saagar Jha
I believe the lack of change there is almost certainly a matter of the project’s personal stance rather than “nobody having a problem with it”. In fact, after the change was merged in there was a fairly long discussion about first disclosing that there were analytics collected at all (which did eventually get implemented) and then switching off of Google Analytics or making it opt-in, which weren’t. Actually, there were multiple discussions but they like the original were generally closed as “WONTFIX” and this has been the policy to this day.

Personally, I would be fairly disappointed if MacPorts went opt-in as such policies suffer from statistical issues in addition to the obvious privacy-related ones.

Saagar Jha

> On Jun 12, 2020, at 16:48, Ken Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Just FYI Homebrew has always been opt-out for stats. Nobody seems to have a problem with that sufficient to make them change that policy.
>
> We'll never know if that is why they seem to have 10 x the users on their stats page.
>
> K

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Ken Cunningham

> On Jun 12, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Saagar Jha <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> I believe the lack of change there is almost certainly a matter of the project’s personal stance rather than “nobody having a problem with it”.

"sufficient to make them change that policy"

> Personally, I would be fairly disappointed if MacPorts went opt-in

I presume you meant to say opt-out



Off topic anyway, just went the new website model where I was struck by initial page highlighting the tiny number of total opt-in stats contributors, and what that means, if anything, regarding stats.

I think homebrew had 1,000,000 installs of — what was it — openssl or something.

Anyway, we won’t change that policy, and I don’t want a flame war about this. Just that our stats might not best be highlighted :>

K
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Arjun Salyan
In reply to this post by Clemens Lang-2
Hi Clemens,

On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:46 AM Clemens Lang <[hidden email]> wrote:
Please keep in mind that we do value URL stability. Specifically, I've
recently added redirects so that our old ports.php script will now
redirect the various links that are out there on upstream websites to
ports.macports.org, preserving the search terms where possible:
  https://github.com/macports/macports-www/pull/20
 
Oh, wow. Thank you for this information.
 
It would be appreciated if we could keep the existing URL structure for
ports.macports.org and not yet change it again, but it seems your
changes have modified it.

While setting the URLs initially I wasn't sure that we would be using the subdomain (ports.macports.org), so I had appended every URL with an extra term (port or ports). For example, the category page is located at '/ports/category/<category> [1]. I saw this as an opportunity to drop that extra "ports/" from the URL and use just '/category/<category>' [2] (I just realised that I was using plural categories till now). If this is not a good idea and is discouraged, we can switch back to the old URLs.

'/search' [3] is a new page with the addition of multiple new filters (compared to just 2 now). This asks for a change to the [case 'library] redirect. If we do not want that too, I can try to accommodate it.

Thank you

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Joshua Root-8
On 2020-6-13 12:18 , Arjun Salyan wrote:

> Hi Clemens,
>
> On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 4:46 AM Clemens Lang <[hidden email]
> <mailto:[hidden email]>> wrote:
>
>     Please keep in mind that we do value URL stability. Specifically, I've
>     recently added redirects so that our old ports.php script will now
>     redirect the various links that are out there on upstream websites to
>     ports.macports.org <http://ports.macports.org>, preserving the
>     search terms where possible:
>       https://github.com/macports/macports-www/pull/20
>
>  
> Oh, wow. Thank you for this information.
>  
>
>     It would be appreciated if we could keep the existing URL structure for
>     ports.macports.org <http://ports.macports.org> and not yet change it
>     again, but it seems your
>     changes have modified it.
>
>
> While setting the URLs initially I wasn't sure that we would be using
> the subdomain (ports.macports.org <http://ports.macports.org>), so I had
> appended every URL with an extra term (port or ports). For example, the
> category page is located at '/ports/category/<category> [1]. I saw this
> as an opportunity to drop that extra "ports/" from the URL and use just
> '/category/<category>' [2] (I just realised that I was using plural
> categories till now). If this is not a good idea and is discouraged, we
> can switch back to the old URLs.

You can change the URL scheme if there are good reasons, but make sure
that old URLs are redirected to their new equivalent.

- Josh
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Andrew Janke
In reply to this post by Saagar Jha
Hi y'all,

I was a core Homebrew maintainer at the time they added analytics. Just
want to say that Saagar is right; there were a *lot* of Homebrew users
who did in fact have a problem with it.

Cheers,
Andrwe


On 6/12/20 9:03 PM, Saagar Jha wrote:

> I believe the lack of change there is almost certainly a matter of the project’s personal stance rather than “nobody having a problem with it”. In fact, after the change was merged in there was a fairly long discussion about first disclosing that there were analytics collected at all (which did eventually get implemented) and then switching off of Google Analytics or making it opt-in, which weren’t. Actually, there were multiple discussions but they like the original were generally closed as “WONTFIX” and this has been the policy to this day.
>
> Personally, I would be fairly disappointed if MacPorts went opt-in as such policies suffer from statistical issues in addition to the obvious privacy-related ones.
>
> Saagar Jha
>
>> On Jun 12, 2020, at 16:48, Ken Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Just FYI Homebrew has always been opt-out for stats. Nobody seems to have a problem with that sufficient to make them change that policy.
>>
>> We'll never know if that is why they seem to have 10 x the users on their stats page.
>>
>> K

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Ken Cunningham
No doubt it caused some tempest.

I was wrong, homebrew’s published stats say they have 5 million openssl installs this year <https://formulae.brew.sh/analytics/install/365d/>


And if you think that doesn’t drive everyone’s decision-making extremely powerfully, I would say we are missing the marketing train.

Here’s their blurb <https://docs.brew.sh/Analytics> about justifying it.

Again, I know MacPorts is not going to change that (no point now). But from a ‘business’ point of view, it was masterful.


K





On Jun 13, 2020, at 8:25 AM, Andrew Janke <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi y'all,

I was a core Homebrew maintainer at the time they added analytics. Just
want to say that Saagar is right; there were a *lot* of Homebrew users
who did in fact have a problem with it.

Cheers,
Andrwe


On 6/12/20 9:03 PM, Saagar Jha wrote:
I believe the lack of change there is almost certainly a matter of the project’s personal stance rather than “nobody having a problem with it”. In fact, after the change was merged in there was a fairly long discussion about first disclosing that there were analytics collected at all (which did eventually get implemented) and then switching off of Google Analytics or making it opt-in, which weren’t. Actually, there were multiple discussions but they like the original were generally closed as “WONTFIX” and this has been the policy to this day.

Personally, I would be fairly disappointed if MacPorts went opt-in as such policies suffer from statistical issues in addition to the obvious privacy-related ones.

Saagar Jha

On Jun 12, 2020, at 16:48, Ken Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just FYI Homebrew has always been opt-out for stats. Nobody seems to have a problem with that sufficient to make them change that policy.

We'll never know if that is why they seem to have 10 x the users on their stats page.

K


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Ken Cunningham
sorry —we’re 835 openssl installs. wrong drop-down.

K

On Jun 13, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Ken Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:

No doubt it caused some tempest.

I was wrong, homebrew’s published stats say they have 5 million openssl installs this year <https://formulae.brew.sh/analytics/install/365d/>


And if you think that doesn’t drive everyone’s decision-making extremely powerfully, I would say we are missing the marketing train.

Here’s their blurb <https://docs.brew.sh/Analytics> about justifying it.

Again, I know MacPorts is not going to change that (no point now). But from a ‘business’ point of view, it was masterful.


K





On Jun 13, 2020, at 8:25 AM, Andrew Janke <[hidden email]> wrote:

Hi y'all,

I was a core Homebrew maintainer at the time they added analytics. Just
want to say that Saagar is right; there were a *lot* of Homebrew users
who did in fact have a problem with it.

Cheers,
Andrwe


On 6/12/20 9:03 PM, Saagar Jha wrote:
I believe the lack of change there is almost certainly a matter of the project’s personal stance rather than “nobody having a problem with it”. In fact, after the change was merged in there was a fairly long discussion about first disclosing that there were analytics collected at all (which did eventually get implemented) and then switching off of Google Analytics or making it opt-in, which weren’t. Actually, there were multiple discussions but they like the original were generally closed as “WONTFIX” and this has been the policy to this day.

Personally, I would be fairly disappointed if MacPorts went opt-in as such policies suffer from statistical issues in addition to the obvious privacy-related ones.

Saagar Jha

On Jun 12, 2020, at 16:48, Ken Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:

Just FYI Homebrew has always been opt-out for stats. Nobody seems to have a problem with that sufficient to make them change that policy.

We'll never know if that is why they seem to have 10 x the users on their stats page.

K



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Call for designers for our ports website

Daniel J. Luke
In reply to this post by Ken Cunningham
Presumably we actually have more complete stats already if we were to aggregate the mirror logs for the distfiles + the binary archives.

If we think having more data is valuable, we could add something to port (maybe display on selfupdate) asking people to opt-in.

> On Jun 13, 2020, at 11:56 AM, Ken Cunningham <[hidden email]> wrote:
> No doubt it caused some tempest.
>
> I was wrong, homebrew’s published stats say they have 5 million openssl installs this year <https://formulae.brew.sh/analytics/install/365d/>
>
> and our analytics say we have 547 <https://ports.macports.org/port/openssl/stats?days=30&days_ago=0>
>
> And if you think that doesn’t drive everyone’s decision-making extremely powerfully, I would say we are missing the marketing train.
>
> Here’s their blurb <https://docs.brew.sh/Analytics> about justifying it.
>
> Again, I know MacPorts is not going to change that (no point now). But from a ‘business’ point of view, it was masterful.

--
Daniel J. Luke