Hi, > From: "Daniel Carrera" <dcarrera / math.umd.edu> > Sent: Thursday, January 30, 2003 4:54 AM Regards to #5 (two columns), I tried on. http://rrr.jin.gr.jp/raa/cat.rhtml?category_major=Library How do you all think? > > > 6) In the lowest-level listings -- for example: > > > > > > http://www.ruby-lang.org/raa/cat.rhtml?category_major=Library;category_minor=Algorithm > > > > > > 1.- Delete the version number, date and file name (e.g. diff.rb). > > > Those are available at the individual project sections like: > > > http://www.ruby-lang.org/raa/list.rhtml?name=diff > > > > File name is from its 'Short description'. No need? > > Oh, I see. > I don't think that the file name should appear in a "short description". > It doesn't tell you anything that you can't infer from the project name. Sure. But it's my fault. I had not to copy it from project name when we add "short description" field. > > > 2.- Replace the state (alpha/beta/stable) by icons > > > (bronze coin/silver coin/ruby) respectively. > > > > Do you mean 'Status' field? It's free text field now... > > Owner should select its status from predefined candidates? > > Yes, that's what I meant, "status" (I'm not a native English speaker, so I > make some mistakes). > > I think that pre-defined categories would be good for a few reasons: > * Makes it easier for the user to browse the list. > * Icons would leave more space for the description, and make the > page look less cluttered. > * Makes the develper think a bit more about the state of their code. > * It let's you include "status" in your search. So you can choose to > only display "stable" code, or "at least beta" or "any". Or you > could have the search sort the most stable projects first. Hmm. Talking about myself, I've not wanted to sort RAA projects by static-ness(?) when I search RAA for now... But I like "owner can select its status from pre-defined status" and icons idea. What "status"s should be pre-defined? alpha, beta, and stable, that's all? Regards, // NaHi