stpeter at stpeter.im
Mon Feb 15 21:17:46 CST 2010
On 2/12/10 4:16 AM, Nicolas Vérité wrote:
> 2010/2/12 Remko Tronçon <remko at el-tramo.be>:
>>> A simple list of client names. Next to each name, icons for each platform
>>> the client runs on.
>> That's the way around. Users don't browse through client lists and
>> then check what platform it runs on. Instead, they have a platform and
>> need to see what clients run on it.
>> I'm with Justin on not putting clients in a cross-platform section,
>> not only because users don't look up clients that way, but also
>> because it's not clear what that means (is supporting 3 platforms
>> enough? how about 2?)
>> If a client is cross-platform, list it in every platform it is
>> supported on, and optionally add something like "(see also: Windows,
> Different aproaches here:
> The "Principal clients" section on jabberes makes sense, for a fast
> choice, but it would advantage the most popular ones.
> The "Pure XMPP" and "Multiprotocol" clients approaches of jabberfr and
> Wikipedia is fine from a user perspetive, since the platform may not
> be the first criterion of choice.
> Then comes the platforms:
> * On jabberes, they appear as text at the end, it might be more
> readable with small logo, as well as more complicated haveing images
> inline with text
> * On Wikipedia, the dynamic table lets you sort by platform, although
> some are noted "Cross-platform"
> * On jabberfr, you have columns as platforms, with the traditionnal
> Win/Lin/Mac, but also mobile and web
> Comparing most of these classifications, I would recommend:
> * The "most popular section" at the beginning, like on jabberes
> * Categorization with XMPP/multi/servce/old seems really intuitive,
> like on jabberfr
> * Then the platform columns, like on jabberfr
Quite possibly. If you guys want to re-arrange the page, feel free. :)
We've always avoided a most-popular section because it's hard to decide
what is most popular, we don't want to offend any developers, etc. But
the arrangement you propose seems reasonable to me.
> We might also add categorization in the mobile space, as stpeter
> asked, but the entropy is (still) too high here. Philosophically, we
> should add a categorization when this makes sense: the list of
> categories must not be too long, every category should have at least
> three items, etc.
> Did I just win my 2 cents?
I think so. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 6820 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
More information about the Members