[RFC] Website refresh for 2.0.0

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

Ian Clatworthy writes:
 > Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

 > > Ah, a second comment: the logos are poorly aligned to my eye.  Maybe a
 > > slightly different background for them?
 > 
 > Emma has made some fixes. Are these better now?

No.  My eyes want to see the text baselines of those logos aligned,
and especially the baseline of "ubuntu" and "and you".  (BTW, I agree
with Russel IIRC who said "and you" doesn't (quite) "work".  I wonder
if "and now you" might be better?  Or an empty rectangle, labelled
"reserved for you"?  You could have a "new user of the week" slot
there.)

 > Martin has suggested expanding the set of operating systems on the top
 > level so that Ubuntu/Debian, Fedora/Red hat and a few others are
 > explicitly pulled out rather than just bundled under GNU/Linux. I think
 > that makes a lot of sense. I don't think Emma wants lots of "Get Bazaar
 > for xxx" buttons on the home page

Gawd, no!  Listen to Emma! :)

 > so maybe the text under "Get Bazaar" ought to have direct links for
 > the main OSs. Sound OK?

You mean like this?

    GET BAZAAR
    Bazaar runs on _Windows_,
    _Mac OS X_, _GNU/Linux_ and
    _UNIX_.  Its only _requirement_   # Wow! Somebody knows how to spell "its"!
    is Python.

Yes, that definitely helps, especially since links are only visible on
rollover.  No, I don't think that expanding GNU/Linux is a good idea.
Bazaar should not be in the business (ie, make promises) to provide
packages for systems where it is supplied natively.  Nothing wrong
with doing so, but I don't think they're worth direct links.  Using a
Bazaar-provided .deb rather than getting it via aptitude is a special
case IMO.  There's definitely a "sweet spot" between waiting for a
.deb (especially in Debian stable :-) and using the source distro
(presumably installed by default into /usr/local), so providing .debs
will be greatly appreciated ... but by how many?  I'd guess few.
Ubuntu's a special case, but ... "special cases aren't special enough
to break the rules".  My take is what is there now is optimal.

Also, I'd drop the version on Python; the chance that somebody who has
*any* Python doesn't have an appropriate and discoverable one (ie,
with the standard pythonX.Y name, on the path) is vanishingly small
these days.  But put a link on "requirement" (which probably could
point to BzrExtras#Python -- slightly abusive, in that Python is not
optional, but it is "extra" in some sense, no?) which leads to a
short blurb saying you do need Python >= 2.4 (I think that would be
ugly on the home page).

 > Sure. Please go ahead and make those changes. (It's a wiki.)

yah, but I'm an academic ... where I live, merely suggesting changes
to people's words often results in an invitation to join Galois.  ...I
guess I'll just have to get over it and join the Wiki Generation.