incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamil...@acm.org>
Subject RE: Must use the incubating qualifier
Date Sat, 23 Jun 2012 21:19:31 GMT
OK, personal impression only:

I find the rainbow coloring through the text of "Get it Here" to be distracting and not helpful.
 I know some subset of us know what the colors represent, but I see no need to be cute about
it.  (Yes, this will be on the final exam.)

I also hope that we might provide a specimen <a><image /></a> that provides
alternative texts that are useful for screen readers, text-to-voice, etc., and other accessibility-oriented
purposes.  I suppose it will be tagged as English, since "Get it Here" is.  

I'm abstaining on this: Drew provides significant effort here, and I recognize that.  I am
providing my impressions FWIW.

 - Dennis

PS: Perhaps others can suggest translations for use on non-English sites.  The URL might then
need to change as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: drew [mailto:drew@baseanswers.com] 
Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 13:57
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Must use the incubating qualifier

On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 21:51 +0100, Ross Gardler wrote:
> The way to deal with these things is acknowledge the need to use the
> qualifier. Where there is a reasonable argument (blog titles on the ASF
> home page for example) undertake to improve things and move on.
> 
> These things come up occasionally when an interested IPMC member does a
> review and sees things the rest of us missed. I brought it here in the hope
> of preventing an IPMC mega-thread. Acknowledge it there, deal with it here.
> 
> If it helps, I'm not worried about the logo thing, but that might be just
> me.
> 

Hi Ross, others,

I'm not worried about the logo thing either per se, then again tradition
is worth something isn't it.

Anyway - here is one quick proposal for a logo change:

http://lo-portal.us/aoo/temp/get-aoo-300x100-icv.png

Let me know what folks,

//drew

> 
> On Saturday, 23 June 2012, Dennis E. Hamilton
> <dennis.hamilton<dennis.hamilton@acm.org>
> @ <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>acm.org <dennis.hamilton@acm.org>> wrote:
> > I think it would be good and wait until the original reporter identifies
> what the specific infraction is and what its cure is.  One part of the
> complaint is how AOOi is mentioned in tweets by @TheASF.  Those are not, as
> far as I am aware, anything under our control whatsoever.
> >
> > I would not dispense with full atom feeds.
> >
> > Having "(incubating)" used at the beginning of a post, even with a link
> to what that entails, could be useful.  Whether it needs to be in the title
> or not remains to be seen.
> >
> > Of course, whatever the practice is asserted to be, it will need to be
> honored by all incubating projects, of course.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Rob Weir [mailto:robweir <robweir@apache.org>@ <robweir@apache.org>
> apache.org <robweir@apache.org>]
> > Sent: Saturday, June 23, 2012 08:40
> > To: ooo-dev@ <ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>incubator.apache.org<ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org>
> > Subject: Re: Must use the incubating qualifier
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:53 AM, drew jensen <drewjensen.inbox<drewjensen.inbox@gmail.com>
> @ <drewjensen.inbox@gmail.com>gmail.com <drewjensen.inbox@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> >> On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 09:51 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 9:48 AM, drew <drew@ <drew@baseanswers.com>
> baseanswers.com <drew@baseanswers.com>> wrote:
> >>> > On Sat, 2012-06-23 at 08:52 -0400, Rob Weir wrote:
> >>> >> On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Rob Weir <robweir<robweir@apache.org>
> @ <robweir@apache.org>apache.org <robweir@apache.org>> wrote:
> >>> >> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Ross Gardler
> >>> >> > <rgardler <rgardler@opendirective.com>@<rgardler@opendirective.com>
> opendirective.com <rgardler@opendirective.com>> wrote:
> >>> >> >> It has been pointed out on the general list that AOO is
not
> always using
> >>> >> >> the incubating qualifier. For example recent blog posts
don't
> include it.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > It is right there, first thing on the page, in a very large
font,
> for
> >>> >> > every blog post:  "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)"
> >>> >> >
> >>> >>
> >>> >> E.g, :  https://<https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>
> blogs.apache.org<https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>
> /OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache<https://blogs.apache.org/OOo/entry/5_million_downloads_of_apache>
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Note the <title> of the page says "Apache OpenOffice (incubating)".
> >>> >> Ditto for the largest (and first) header on the page.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Looking at the general list, it sounds like NIck's issue was that
> blog
> >>> >> aggregators, such as used by Apache for generating content on the
> home
> >>> >> page are not picking up on this.
> >>> >
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > Maybe, I just read the incubator list also I think Nick is saying that
> >>> > _any_ time the phrase Apache OpenOffice is used it must have the word
> >>> > incubating included, not just in the title.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> But that's not the policy.  The policy is that it must be called out
> >>> as incubating at first mention in the document.
> >>
> >> That's what I thought also - I'm saying how it reads to me, that's all.
> >>
> >
> > Maybe the key is to realize that when we publish a blog post, we
> > publish two things:
> >
> > 1) A web page, which does IMHO have the correct incubation notices on it.
> >
> > 2) An Atom feed that will be used by websites and services outside of
> > our immediate control, and which will not bring along the full page
> > context from the blog.
> >
> > On the second one, I think the remedy might be get the incubation
> > notice into the post ("entry") titles.  It may be possible to do this
> > automatically (per my previous post), but it could be done manually as
> > well.
> >
> > -Rob
> >
> >>>
> >>> -Rob
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > //drew
> >>> >
> >>> > <snip>
> >>> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >



Mime
View raw message