[Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites
Given that we have an ongoing problem with people inadvisedly clicking and installing things, is there a good rationale for allowing them to do so? Perhaps the landing page for each package should be stripped of links and replaced with some indication of the availability for each package on the various operating systems. There could also be a note indicating that people can install using biocLite(). Best, Jim
On 7/22/2014 11:48 AM, Dan Tenenbaum wrote:
Seems like there are two problems, first that the release and devel pages look similar, but more importantly that people are downloading and installing from the package pages when they should be using biocLite(). I am open to the suggestions for making the release/devel pages look more different from each other, but I think something needs to be done about the second problem as well. Perhaps a popup that comes up when you click on a package tarball saying "The best way to install this is with biocLite(); are you sure you want to download it?" Whatever we do probably won't happen until after BioC2014. Dan ----- Original Message -----
From: "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehring at embl.de> To: "Herv? Pag?s" <hpages at fhcrc.org>, "Michael Lawrence" <lawrence.michael at gene.com>, "Vincent Carey" <stvjc at channing.harvard.edu> Cc: bioc-devel at r-project.org Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 8:07:29 AM Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites Hi, Tooltips that appear while hovering over selected links are easy to miss. This alone will likely not be clear enough. We should convey the information that the entire website presents a different version of the package. The idea of a notification box that can be made visible by the individual user seems tempting. One can combine this with an optional cookie, to remember the state between browser sessions. Changing the layout of the devel page itself will also be helpful to make the distinction more pronounced. Hopefully we could approach this in a way that maintains the nice design of the bioc website. Best Julian On 21.07.2014 21:50, Herv? Pag?s wrote:
Hi, In addition to these suggestions, how about using a special background color for package landing pages in devel? Cheers, H. On 07/21/2014 07:32 PM, Michael Lawrence wrote:
Or an unobtrusive "notification box" that drops down from the top of the page, saying something like "this is devel"; there would be a dismiss button and a checkbox for whether to show again. The user is free to simply ignore it and proceed as normal. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 7:10 PM, Vincent Carey <stvjc at channing.harvard.edu> wrote:
how about a tooltip that reads "installation via biocLite() is the recommended approach to Bioconductor software acquisition, other approaches may lead to inconsistent package-sets" that appears when a reader hovers over a tarball. i would imagine that this is how the "wrong package" gets installed, by manually using an inappropriate tarball. wrong documentation is not so easy but the doc on the devel branch might have a different tooltip cautioning the readers to be sure they want to read the doc on the devel version. On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:39 PM, Julian Gehring <julian.gehring at embl.de> wrote:
Hi, Can we make the package websites for the devel and release version of a package more distinguishable? To elaborate on this: In the past, I have seen several users having problems with using bioconductor because they ended up on the wrong page (mostly the devel page when they would have needed the release). This resulted in getting the wrong documentation or installing the wrong package. The pages are well designed, and there is no reason to change this. However, the websites for the devel and release version of a
package
look almost identical, and that these two get confused seems to happen to many users (me included). If you search for a package within the bioc website, the release version always comes first in the search results. If you are coming from the outside (e.g. google), this may not be the case. In fact, googling a few packages names often returned only the devel page in the top 10 search results. What are the feelings regarding this? We could add a header section on
the
devel page that states that this is an unstable version not meant to be used in production settings, and provide a link to the respective release version? Best wishes Julian
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
[[alternative HTML version deleted]]
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
_______________________________________________ Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
James W. MacDonald, M.S. Biostatistician University of Washington Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences 4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100 Seattle WA 98105-6099