[ZWeb] Re: NEW Products Page View
Fri, 26 Apr 2002 15:59:00 -0400
> Hi Trevor - I like your product page layout very much. Here's my comments:
> "Trevor Toenjes" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > We could use an alt-tag with the current release version.
> > Is this acceptable?
> No, I think the full version should appear in the link. In fact I would
> suggest using the exact filename instead of Download Now, eg
> ZSomethingProduct-x.yy.tgz, because that makes it very clear what you'll
> get when you click.
> I like having the screenshots visible at the top of the page; but if they
> were just a bit larger they would be useful without having to click on
> them. How about putting them three abreast below the description &
> special notice ?
> The overall and user/author difficulty ratings are great. Would it make
> sense to replace the rate this product link with simple thumbs up/thumbs
> down links ? And also convert the difficulty ratings to five-star graphics
> with similar thumbs up/thumbs down. Just an idea, I'm planning to do
> something like this for zwiki pages.
> I think the explicit rules for the description sections are good, and it
> would be nice if their essence is immediately clear to the user as
> well. Eg headings like "Description - what it does:", "Explanation -
> motivation and product notes:", etc. Ah, I see the view guidelines links
> below, that's good too.
> Would it be correct to say that Explanation is basically "product
> motivation plus anything that doesn't fit in the other sections" ?
> Might it be possible to clarify the categories a little more ?
> Down at the bottom, Comments/Descriptions/Explanations/How-tos feels a
> little like too many categories with too much overlap.. but maybe we'd get
> used to it.
The PRIMARY motivation was to let the community add these sections if the
author did not. That is why it mirrors the author section. It does look
redundant on this example template, becuase this is the rare example of a
fully populated product object. Imagine what it would look like when the
author hasnt added an Explanation or How-to...
then the Community section makes more sense as it is proposed.
But we do want to avoid bloat and confusion.
If you have better verbiage, please help.
> How about moving Comments to the bottom to emphasize that
> they are the fallback "miscellaneous" category.
good point. The intention was that this was the most important section
because it was not a mirror of the author section.
> Finally, how about a zwiki.org-style comment form at the bottom of the
> page to make posting easier.
I think this is a great idea. I had played with this but left it out when
the page started growing. It has been refined back to a point where it might
This should just be for the comments section and then justifies moving
comments to the bottom.
Can you join the project to add this funcationality as a sub-class of the
This might require CMFWiki code, since I think the goal is to rewrite NZO in
CMF and ZPT.
But we need to address one of my Wiki-usability-peeves.
"If the user is not authenticated, then we should not present the textfield
to enter comments and give them a different view that says. "Login to Add
This avoids frustrating users that type in comments, only to be told they
are not a valid user and discarding the message.
So Authenticated and Anonymous should have different views of the page.
Due to the sacred domain of the author's space and to mitigate abuse, we
will not allow Anonymous posts to the page.