2003-10-13 - Summary of mozilla.org staff meeting
Gervase Markham
-------------------------------------------------
*1.5 Final update*
- Bits are staged and ready for pushing (leaf)
- Release notes need tweaking, but are by and large done and ready
for pushing. (asa/leaf)
*Mozilla Firebird 0.7 update*
- Bits ready for pushing, release notes need touch up (bengoodger?)
*Mozilla Thunderbird 0.3 update*
- Bits ready for pushing (mscott)
*CD progress*
- CDs are being made, and orders can be taken as early as wednesday,
with shipping on thursday or friday.
*New website progress*
- Staff feedback to Raphael/Bart being incorporated into new design.
- Ben Goodger to take ownership of the front page design for the
nonce.
- Current draft is at: http://www.mozilla.org/website-beta/
*Roadmap update*
- ETA Wednesday in time for the website change/announcement.
*Have all the jobs Asa would have done been picked up?*
- Asa is on vacation
- He has smoketested the bits in question for release, and furnished
mostly completed release notes. Leaf will push them at the
appropriate time, in addition to doublechecking that any outdated
information is corrected.
*FTP mirror network*
- Chofmann noticed slowness, Myk will request that ftp mirrors post an
identifying string at the top of ftp/http directories, to help
identify slow hosts in the round-robin.
- Access to ftp.mozilla.org download logs is being worked on by the
networks; past information will be acquired, in addition to a
logging scheme going forward. (Myk)
Leaf
Peter Lairo
> 2003-10-13 - Summary of mozilla.org staff meeting
> -------------------------------------------------
>
> *1.5 Final update*
>
> - Bits are staged and ready for pushing (leaf)
What does that mean. If it means that the "files" are ready to be placed
on the FTP servers for download; I thought all the releases (1.5,
FB-0.7, TB-0.3) where *already* available for download. :-\
> *New website progress*
>
> - Current draft is at: http://www.mozilla.org/website-beta/
Egads. That site looks awful. I don't know how "far along" this page is
considered to be, so my udgement may be too harsh (apologies, if this is
the case).
I don't have much time to elaborate, but here are some bullet items:
- The top menu "box" has 3D-ish border. None of the other boxes have
this. It looks very inconsitent.
- The site doesn't scale to the window size.
- The right brown box is way too far from the right screen edge. It's
neither in the middle of the window, nor on the right. It's just lopsided.
- Text has too much vertical spacing. Too little info in a screenfull.
- Using brown as the dominant color was about the 2nd worst possible
choice (black being 1st). OK, this is just *my* oppinion.
- It should be "Technology Previews" (plural).
- The top menu box and the left menu box touch at their edges. This just
looks bad. Their colors also don't match.
- Each of the three boxes uses a different color (gray, brown1, brown2).
- The boxes "kill spam" and "squash 'em" are unrelated. It is not clear
what the "purpose" of these boxes is. Why are they next to Tech Previews?
- The layout and visual style of the current version is much better.
Although there is too much duplicate info between the left collumn and
main body.
Sorry for rant, but I wanted to list my impressions and didn't have time
to formulate them more neutrally. All-in-all, you guys are doing an
incredible job. :)
--
Peter Lairo
This is a *developer* newsgroup. For end-user discussion and peer
support please go to:
snews://secnews.netscape.com:563/netscape.mozilla.user.general (make
sure "SSL" is enabled)
Posting Rulz: http://www.mozilla.org/community-etiquette.html#conventions
Mozilla FAQ: http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/faq/
Matthias Versen
Peter Lairo wrote:
>> 2003-10-13 - Summary of mozilla.org staff meeting
>> -------------------------------------------------
>>
>> *1.5 Final update*
>>
>> - Bits are staged and ready for pushing (leaf)
>
>
> What does that mean. If it means that the "files" are ready to be placed
> on the FTP servers for download; I thought all the releases (1.5,
> FB-0.7, TB-0.3) where *already* available for download. :-\
Reread the date of the meeting.
Matthias
--
Please delete everything between "matti" and the "@" in my mail address.
Boris 'pi' Piwinger
>> *New website progress*
>>
>> - Current draft is at: http://www.mozilla.org/website-beta/
Now at: http://website-beta.mozilla.org/
> - The site doesn't scale to the window size.
What annoys me most is much white space to the rigth of the
main content. It is OK to limit width, of course, but then
this should also apply to the brown box on top.
You could use max-width and margin:auto to have a limited
width and split the remaining space evenly to both sides,
keeping the content in the center.
pi
James Ross
I gotta say, I'm *seriously* amused by the fact that while the main
content is set up to fix itself at 800x600 res, certain pages [1] have a
horizontal scrollbar at that very resolution!
I'd rather the page was /designed to fit/ at 800x600, but not limited to
it, personally.
--
James Ross <sil...@warwickcompsoc.co.uk>
Uncertainty can be a guiding light...
-- Bugzilla Quip List
[1] http://website-beta.mozilla.org/products/ for example.
Fred
> it, personally.
>
I agree. It does not look fine at 1280x1024. Too much place unused. And
almost nobody still uses such a low resolution as 800x600. It would be
better to use 1024x768 as default.
About colors, it looks fine. Not a problem for me.
Maybe a suggestion:
Why not to include the 'Download' page in the main page? An average user
coming here mostly wants to download Mozilla for his OS. But the
download links from the main page appear to be of second importance. The
download section on the download page with its gray background and OS
icons is much nicer. I really like it!
Fred
Boris 'pi' Piwinger
>> I'd rather the page was /designed to fit/ at 800x600, but not limited to
>> it, personally.
>
> I agree. It does not look fine at 1280x1024. Too much place unused. And
> almost nobody still uses such a low resolution as 800x600. It would be
> better to use 1024x768 as default.
ARGH. Use *no* resolution as default. If you want to, use PDF.
pi
Peter Lairo
>> placed on the FTP servers for download; I thought all the releases
>> (1.5, FB-0.7, TB-0.3) where *already* available for download. :-\
>
> Reread the date of the meeting.
EGADS :-[
--
Regards,
Peter Lairo
L. David Baron
> Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> >> *New website progress*
> >>
> >> - Current draft is at: http://www.mozilla.org/website-beta/
>
> Now at: http://website-beta.mozilla.org/
>
> > - The site doesn't scale to the window size.
>
> What annoys me most is much white space to the rigth of the
> main content. It is OK to limit width, of course, but then
> this should also apply to the brown box on top.
We've been discussing changes to the new web site, and I just checked in
a bunch of changes to http://website-beta.mozilla.org/ . (It may help
to Shift-Reload -- we seem to have a bug on not revalidating cached CSS
when the stylesheet changes.)
The previous version is at http://website-beta.mozilla.org/index2.html
-David
--
L. David Baron <URL: http://dbaron.org/ >
Axel Hecht
<...>
> We've been discussing changes to the new web site, and I just checked in
> a bunch of changes to http://website-beta.mozilla.org/ . (It may help
> to Shift-Reload -- we seem to have a bug on not revalidating cached CSS
> when the stylesheet changes.)
>
> The previous version is at http://website-beta.mozilla.org/index2.html
>
> -David
>
Better. I still think that the bar on the left is too wide, though. And
I miss a link to documentation in the top bar.
Axel
Christian Biesinger
> We've been discussing changes to the new web site, and I just checked in
> a bunch of changes to http://website-beta.mozilla.org/
I like it. However, maybe the html validity errors from
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwebsite-beta.mozilla.org%2F
should be fixed
Benedikt Kantus
> I like it. However, maybe the html validity errors from
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwebsite-beta.mozilla.org%2F
> should be fixed
There are no validity errors...
-Bene
--
Due to spamming of W32/Swen@mm (W32/Gibe-F) my mailbox might be full.
Please do not mail me but post your answer to this group only.
Christian Biesinger
> There are no validity errors...
Hm, indeed. By the time I posted that, there were.
Gervase Markham
> I agree. It does not look fine at 1280x1024. Too much place unused. And
> almost nobody still uses such a low resolution as 800x600.
Actually, more than 40% of the web does, at last look.
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
Gerv