[Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites

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

         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

    [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

    [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

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

          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

From: "James W. MacDonald" <jmacdon at uw.edu>
To: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>, "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehring at embl.de>
Cc: "Michael Lawrence" <lawrence.michael at gene.com>, bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 9:26:13 AM
Subject: Re: [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

          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

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

          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

From: "Andrzej Ole?" <andrzej.oles at gmail.com>
To: "James W. MacDonald" <jmacdon at uw.edu>
Cc: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>, "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehring at embl.de>, "Michael Lawrence"
<lawrence.michael at gene.com>, bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:14:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites

Hi all,

I think having links is useful, e.g. for someone who uses BioC
release
but wants to install by hand a particular package from the devel
branch.

Distinct colors between release and devel make sense only if one
understands their meaning, which in the end might prove not to be
very
useful. 

I would rather recommend emphasizing the distinction between
release and devel in clear text across the package landing page,
possibly in multiple places, e.g. somewhere close to the actual
package version number; for instance, add the word "devel" after the
version number with a tooltip which will give some
explanation/warning
that this is not the stable release version.

The concept of a notification box is far from ideal because it tends
to be annoing to the user and once dismissed 'forever' the user won't
be warned in the future.

I think that the actual problem arises from the fact that the release
landing pages are not clearly prioritized over the devel ones. Maybe
this could be  addressed by preventing the devel pages from being
harvested by google? It could make also sense to emphasize (bold
face,
color, ...) the package release landing page on the result list
returned by the search engine on the BioC website. Currently, the
results for release and devel differ only in their relative path,
which can be easily overlooked, and both say "<Package> Home", see
example below:

Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
          Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home
Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/devel/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
          Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home

Cheers,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM, James W. MacDonald <jmacdon at uw.edu>
wrote:

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

          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

Hi all,

I think having links is useful, e.g. for someone who uses BioC release
but wants to install by hand a particular package from the devel
branch.

Distinct colors between release and devel make sense only if one
understands their meaning, which in the end might prove not to be very
useful. I would rather recommend emphasizing the distinction between
release and devel in clear text across the package landing page,
possibly in multiple places, e.g. somewhere close to the actual
package version number; for instance, add the word "devel" after the
version number with a tooltip which will give some explanation/warning
that this is not the stable release version.

The concept of a notification box is far from ideal because it tends
to be annoing to the user and once dismissed 'forever' the user won't
be warned in the future.

I think that the actual problem arises from the fact that the release
landing pages are not clearly prioritized over the devel ones. Maybe
this could be  addressed by preventing the devel pages from being
harvested by google? It could make also sense to emphasize (bold face,
color, ...) the package release landing page on the result list
returned by the search engine on the BioC website. Currently, the
results for release and devel differ only in their relative path,
which can be easily overlooked, and both say "<Package> Home", see
example below:

Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home
Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/devel/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home


Cheers,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM, James W. MacDonald <jmacdon at uw.edu> wrote:

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

           [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

From: "Matthew McCall" <mccallm at gmail.com>
To: "Michael Lawrence" <lawrence.michael at gene.com>
Cc: bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:49:39 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package	websites

I hope the "package source" link is not on the proposed list of links
to
remove. I often use these links to browse through the source code of
packages to learn from others' work. Also, it seems that making the
source
code (even slightly) less accessible would go against the principle
of open
source software.

Best,
Matt



On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Michael Lawrence
<lawrence.michael at gene.com

wrote:

Agreed. Disabling the links is a good idea. There's really no good
reason
for someone to install packages manually. If a user really wants to
mix
release/devel, it is still technically possible but this change
would
strongly discourage it.

For ensuring the user notices that a page is for the devel version
, I'm
still in favor of the simple notification box. Probably without the
option
to hide forever.


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, James W. MacDonald
<jmacdon at uw.edu>
wrote:

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

          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

     [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

        [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
Matthew N McCall, PhD
112 Arvine Heights
Rochester, NY 14611
Cell: 202-222-5880

	[[alternative HTML version deleted]]

From: "James W. MacDonald" <jmacdon at uw.edu>
To: "Andrzej Ole?" <andrzej.oles at gmail.com>
Cc: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>, "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehring at embl.de>, "Michael Lawrence"
<lawrence.michael at gene.com>, bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:51:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites

Hi Andrzej,

On 7/22/2014 1:14 PM, Andrzej Ole? wrote:

Hi all,

I think having links is useful, e.g. for someone who uses BioC
release
but wants to install by hand a particular package from the devel
branch.

I'm not sure I think this is a compelling reason for keeping the
links.
If someone is sophisticated enough to install a devel version of a
package into their release install, then surely they are
sophisticated
enough to get it from svn?

It has always struck me as odd that we try time and again to get
people
to use biocLite() to install packages, yet make it so easy for people
to
ignore this advice.

Best,

Jim

Distinct colors between release and devel make sense only if one
understands their meaning, which in the end might prove not to be
very
useful. I would rather recommend emphasizing the distinction
between
release and devel in clear text across the package landing page,
possibly in multiple places, e.g. somewhere close to the actual
package version number; for instance, add the word "devel" after
the
version number with a tooltip which will give some
explanation/warning
that this is not the stable release version.

The concept of a notification box is far from ideal because it
tends
to be annoing to the user and once dismissed 'forever' the user
won't
be warned in the future.

I think that the actual problem arises from the fact that the
release
landing pages are not clearly prioritized over the devel ones.
Maybe
this could be  addressed by preventing the devel pages from being
harvested by google? It could make also sense to emphasize (bold
face,
color, ...) the package release landing page on the result list
returned by the search engine on the BioC website. Currently, the
results for release and devel differ only in their relative path,
which can be easily overlooked, and both say "<Package> Home", see
example below:

Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home
Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/devel/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home


Cheers,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM, James W. MacDonald
<jmacdon at uw.edu> wrote:

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

           [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

----- Original Message -----

From: "Andrzej Ole?" <andrzej.oles at gmail.com>
To: "James W. MacDonald" <jmacdon at uw.edu>
Cc: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>, "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehring at embl.de>, "Michael Lawrence"
<lawrence.michael at gene.com>, bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:14:05 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites

Hi all,

I think having links is useful, e.g. for someone who uses BioC
release
but wants to install by hand a particular package from the devel
branch.

Why would you want to do that? That's the kind of thing that gets people into trouble.
Anyway, the packages would still be downloadable, and the link location could be figured out, but I don't think we need to make it easier for people to do the wrong thing by providing links.

Distinct colors between release and devel make sense only if one
understands their meaning, which in the end might prove not to be
very
useful.

There are also design considerations; I'm not sure a different background color would look good.

I would rather recommend emphasizing the distinction between
release and devel in clear text across the package landing page,
possibly in multiple places, e.g. somewhere close to the actual
package version number; for instance, add the word "devel" after the
version number with a tooltip which will give some
explanation/warning
that this is not the stable release version.

The concept of a notification box is far from ideal because it tends
to be annoing to the user and once dismissed 'forever' the user won't
be warned in the future.

I think that the actual problem arises from the fact that the release
landing pages are not clearly prioritized over the devel ones. Maybe
this could be  addressed by preventing the devel pages from being
harvested by google? It could make also sense to emphasize (bold
face,
color, ...) the package release landing page on the result list
returned by the search engine on the BioC website. Currently, the
results for release and devel differ only in their relative path,
which can be easily overlooked, and both say "<Package> Home", see
example below:

Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home
Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/devel/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home

These are all great ideas for making the release and devel pages look different from each other, and maybe we'll consider some of them, but the real problem is people downloading packages from these pages--and they could run into the same problems by downloading packages from the release landing page (if, for example, they are running BioC devel, or some version that's earlier than the current release).

I don't think any of the measures will be as effective as simply removing the links and replacing them with instructions on installing the package via biocLite().

Dan

Cheers,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM, James W. MacDonald <jmacdon at uw.edu>
wrote:

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

           [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

The current link to the source tarball is called "Package Source" hence the
quotes. Yes, I could check out the package using svn, but when browsing
through a Bioconductor workflow, there are these handy links to the package
pages that let me download and browse the source tarball without having to
type anything. I like the idea of replacing the source tarball link with a
link to the package source in svn.

Best,
Matt




On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Michael Lawrence <lawrence.michael at gene.com

wrote:

Just check out from svn to get the source... way easier to keep up to
date, and if you notice an issue, easier to make a patch.




On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Matthew McCall <mccallm at gmail.com>
wrote:

I hope the "package source" link is not on the proposed list of links to
remove. I often use these links to browse through the source code of
packages to learn from others' work. Also, it seems that making the source
code (even slightly) less accessible would go against the principle of open
source software.

Best,
Matt



On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Michael Lawrence <
lawrence.michael at gene.com> wrote:

Agreed. Disabling the links is a good idea. There's really no good reason
for someone to install packages manually. If a user really wants to mix
release/devel, it is still technically possible but this change would
strongly discourage it.

For ensuring the user notices that a page is for the devel version , I'm
still in favor of the simple notification box. Probably without the
option
to hide forever.


On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 9:26 AM, James W. MacDonald <jmacdon at uw.edu>
wrote:

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

           [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
Matthew N McCall, PhD
112 Arvine Heights
Rochester, NY 14611
Cell: 202-222-5880

Hi all,

I think having links is useful, e.g. for someone who uses BioC release
but wants to install by hand a particular package from the devel
branch.

Distinct colors between release and devel make sense only if one
understands their meaning, which in the end might prove not to be very
useful.

I would rather recommend emphasizing the distinction between
release and devel in clear text across the package landing page,
possibly in multiple places, e.g. somewhere close to the actual
package version number; for instance, add the word "devel" after the
version number with a tooltip which will give some explanation/warning
that this is not the stable release version.

The concept of a notification box is far from ideal because it tends
to be annoing to the user and once dismissed 'forever' the user won't
be warned in the future.

I think that the actual problem arises from the fact that the release
landing pages are not clearly prioritized over the devel ones. Maybe
this could be  addressed by preventing the devel pages from being
harvested by google? It could make also sense to emphasize (bold face,
color, ...) the package release landing page on the result list
returned by the search engine on the BioC website. Currently, the
results for release and devel differ only in their relative path,
which can be easily overlooked, and both say "<Package> Home", see
example below:

Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home
Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/devel/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home


Cheers,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM, James W. MacDonald <jmacdon at uw.edu> wrote:

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

           [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

----- Original Message -----

From: "James W. MacDonald" <jmacdon at uw.edu>
To: "Andrzej Ole?" <andrzej.oles at gmail.com>
Cc: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>, "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehring at embl.de>, "Michael Lawrence"
<lawrence.michael at gene.com>, bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:51:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites

Hi Andrzej,

On 7/22/2014 1:14 PM, Andrzej Ole? wrote:

Hi all,

I think having links is useful, e.g. for someone who uses BioC
release
but wants to install by hand a particular package from the devel
branch.

I'm not sure I think this is a compelling reason for keeping the
links.
If someone is sophisticated enough to install a devel version of a
package into their release install, then surely they are
sophisticated
enough to get it from svn?

Or to know how to find the link to the tarball.

Dan

It has always struck me as odd that we try time and again to get
people
to use biocLite() to install packages, yet make it so easy for people
to
ignore this advice.

Best,

Jim

Distinct colors between release and devel make sense only if one
understands their meaning, which in the end might prove not to be
very
useful. I would rather recommend emphasizing the distinction
between
release and devel in clear text across the package landing page,
possibly in multiple places, e.g. somewhere close to the actual
package version number; for instance, add the word "devel" after
the
version number with a tooltip which will give some
explanation/warning
that this is not the stable release version.

The concept of a notification box is far from ideal because it
tends
to be annoing to the user and once dismissed 'forever' the user
won't
be warned in the future.

I think that the actual problem arises from the fact that the
release
landing pages are not clearly prioritized over the devel ones.
Maybe
this could be  addressed by preventing the devel pages from being
harvested by google? It could make also sense to emphasize (bold
face,
color, ...) the package release landing page on the result list
returned by the search engine on the BioC website. Currently, the
results for release and devel differ only in their relative path,
which can be easily overlooked, and both say "<Package> Home", see
example below:

Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home
Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/devel/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home


Cheers,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM, James W. MacDonald
<jmacdon at uw.edu> wrote:

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

           [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

From: "Andrzej Ole?" <andrzej.oles at gmail.com>
To: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>
Cc: "James W. MacDonald" <jmacdon at uw.edu>, "Julian Gehring" <julian.gehring at embl.de>, "Michael Lawrence"
<lawrence.michael at gene.com>, bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 2:06:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel package websites

Dear Dan, James, Michael, Matt,

thank you, I see your point but I'm afraid I must disagree with you.
I've had this situation numerous times that I have added/fixed
something in the devel branch of a package and had to advice the
users
to use this latest version. Needless to say, they were typically
using
the release branch, and it was a relatively painless procedure for
them to pick the tarball from the devel landing page and proceed with
manual installation. Of course, this could be also achieved by
installing from the svn, however, this is not very welcome from the
user's perspective.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge there is no
build-in mechanism in 'biocLite' facilitating the above described
scenario. Therefore, I think that it could be useful to have an
'useDevel' argument to biocLite() allowing for the installation of a
specific package(s) from the devel rather than from the release
branch
without having to switch to devel completely. As this would be an
optional argument defaulting to FALSE I wouldn't be worried by
potential abuse, at least not more than by having the devel packages
exposed on the website. As an additional precaution measure we could
issue a warning and ask the user to confirm that (s)he is aware of
the
risks and wants to proceed.

As Matt pointed out, direct links to "package source" tarballs are
very useful for quick and lightweight inspection of package code.
This
approach combined with opening the files directly with an archive
browser is particularly appealing, as it saves one from dealing with
manual svn checkout and the cleanup afterwards. Please note that
replacing the prebuild tarball with a link to the SVN has the caveat
of getting potantially broken code. Tarballs which make it through to
the website guarantee that the package at least builds.

Best,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 7:57 PM, Dan Tenenbaum <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>
wrote:

----- Original Message -----

From: "James W. MacDonald" <jmacdon at uw.edu>
To: "Andrzej Ole?" <andrzej.oles at gmail.com>
Cc: "Dan Tenenbaum" <dtenenba at fhcrc.org>, "Julian Gehring"
<julian.gehring at embl.de>, "Michael Lawrence"
<lawrence.michael at gene.com>, bioc-devel at r-project.org
Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2014 10:51:35 AM
Subject: Re: [Bioc-devel] Distinction between release and devel
package websites

Hi Andrzej,

On 7/22/2014 1:14 PM, Andrzej Ole? wrote:

Hi all,

I think having links is useful, e.g. for someone who uses BioC
release
but wants to install by hand a particular package from the devel
branch.

I'm not sure I think this is a compelling reason for keeping the
links.
If someone is sophisticated enough to install a devel version of a
package into their release install, then surely they are
sophisticated
enough to get it from svn?

Or to know how to find the link to the tarball.

Dan

It has always struck me as odd that we try time and again to get
people
to use biocLite() to install packages, yet make it so easy for
people
to
ignore this advice.

Best,

Jim

Distinct colors between release and devel make sense only if one
understands their meaning, which in the end might prove not to
be
very
useful. I would rather recommend emphasizing the distinction
between
release and devel in clear text across the package landing page,
possibly in multiple places, e.g. somewhere close to the actual
package version number; for instance, add the word "devel" after
the
version number with a tooltip which will give some
explanation/warning
that this is not the stable release version.

The concept of a notification box is far from ideal because it
tends
to be annoing to the user and once dismissed 'forever' the user
won't
be warned in the future.

I think that the actual problem arises from the fact that the
release
landing pages are not clearly prioritized over the devel ones.
Maybe
this could be  addressed by preventing the devel pages from
being
harvested by google? It could make also sense to emphasize (bold
face,
color, ...) the package release landing page on the result list
returned by the search engine on the BioC website. Currently,
the
results for release and devel differ only in their relative
path,
which can be easily overlooked, and both say "<Package> Home",
see
example below:

Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/release/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home
Bioconductor - DESeq2 - /packages/devel/bioc/html/DESeq2.html
           Bioconductor - DESeq2 Home


Cheers,
Andrzej

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 6:26 PM, James W. MacDonald
<jmacdon at uw.edu> wrote:

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

           [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

      [[alternative HTML version deleted]]

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099

--
James W. MacDonald, M.S.
Biostatistician
University of Washington
Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences
4225 Roosevelt Way NE, # 100
Seattle WA 98105-6099