Re: A thought on Windows Experience

[Phil Burfitt]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> If you think that Lilypond's web page needs a facelift, then
> volunteer to roll up your sleeves and help change it.......

Werner Lemberg wrote:
> Do you want to work on that? We don't have a specialist
> who really likes to dive into the nifty HTML and Java issues
> while creating the contents via the texinfo format so that
> the PDF stays in sync with the HTML and info output.


Tim and Werner, I would love to, and have considered a few times in the 
past. Unfortunately I do not have the time, have no experience of texinfo, 
and would probably have to ditch it within the coming year due to future 
plans anyway.

I don't know how the current system is setup, but I don't see the need for 
"nifty HTML". A separation of content and presentation, with clean, simple, 
hand coded (s)html pages (as noted by others...html authoring tools clutter 
the code - usually with info needed by the authoring tool itself) . 
Extensive use of divs, the usual webpage furniture where needed (menus, 
crumblines, buttons, etc), a few graphics, style sheets, and little else. 
Definitely no client-side scripting, and content for dynamic pages (and 
static pages if you want) provided by server-side includes. It seems child's 
play to me, but David's comments leave me wondering how entangled the 
current setup may be.


Francisco Vila wrote:
> I don't want my initial proposal to get polluted with issues
> about cuteness of our web page. My stronger idea would be:
>
> "Let's give new users something they can double-click and start
> playing without the need of calling them stupid for having done so"

I completely agree. I think the lilypond desktop icon is a problem as I 
initially suggested, and I think that it should be a first priority. However 
lilypond definitely needs a little "window dressing" in order to get folks 
to come on in. While David and others are busy working on the "Porsche" 
engine (and a fine engine it is from my perspective), I feel the bodywork 
have been left to get dusty/rusty.

This all ties in with the need to market/promote lilypond and David's need 
for funding. The best and most efficient means of promotion on the net is by 
word-of-mouth. Word soon gets around if something is good, but also if it is 
bad, faulty, or problematic. While those involved in lilypond may think that 
meager resources should be channelled into software development, perhaps 
some time should be dedicated to focusing on increasing lilyponds user base 
which would ultimately translate into more chances of help and funding. It's 
a bit chicken and egg!


Phil.