Hi all,
As pdfreaders.org has been running for some weeks and we have received a few comments regarding the pages that should be acted upon, it is time to do a little brush-up. If you have any comments or ideas, and would like to discuss the proposed changes, please sign up to pdfreaders@lists.fsfe.org where the discussion will take place. The direct signup-link is https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/pdfreaders
The comments received so far are:
* Footer translation * Moving text to "about" * Fixing css and adding wrappers for ie compatibility * Alphabetize the readers * Add more buttons (+ sources and license) * Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
all the best, /Stian
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-07 14:42:00 +0100]:
The comments received so far are:
- Footer translation
- Moving text to "about"
Which text?
- Fixing css and adding wrappers for ie compatibility
Last time I checked it looked good with IE.
- Alphabetize the readers
- Add more buttons (+ sources and license)
- localised version on the localised pages
- Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
- sumatra pdf portable - gnupdf is not a reader, it should be included in the "more information" part with the link they sent us for call for developers.
Best wishes, Matthias
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 14:56 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
The comments received so far are:
- Footer translation
- Moving text to "about"
Which text?
Most of the text on the front page actually. My suggestion is to move all "propaganda" (which would probably be the three first paragraphs and the FSFE-links) to a separate about-page. This will make the front page less terrifying for luddites, and it would create an appearance of the site as "an helpful overview of PDF-readers" rather than "a pr-stunt for FSFE". (Note that I'm not suggesting pdfreaders.org is a pr-stunt, but I'm quite sure many people will read it that way.)
- Fixing css and adding wrappers for ie compatibility
Last time I checked it looked good with IE.
It doesn't look too bad, but not exactly identical with what standards-compliant browsers show. The main bugs are the lack of margins and centering, and there are rather simple workarounds to fix them (although they require <div>-wrappers in the html).
- Alphabetize the readers
- Add more buttons (+ sources and license)
- localised version on the localised pages
Does anyone know whether there's a simple way of doing this with webgen? It would be preferable to not having to enter different filenames on the different languages, but rather having webgen fetch the graphic with the filename that corresponds with the language.
- Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
- sumatra pdf portable
- gnupdf is not a reader, it should be included in the "more information" part with the link they sent us for call for developers.
How about GSview? It is licensed under Aladding Free Public License[1]. It is arguably a Free license (at least, the arguments against proprietary software on pdfreaders.org does not apply to it), but as it cannot be distributed for a fee, it is not accepted by the FSF.
[1] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/LICENCE (see section 2.a)
all the best, /Stian
Stian Rødven Eide schrieb:
- Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
- sumatra pdf portable
- gnupdf is not a reader, it should be included in the "more information" part with the link they sent us for call for developers.
How about GSview? It is licensed under Aladding Free Public License[1]. It is arguably a Free license (at least, the arguments against proprietary software on pdfreaders.org does not apply to it), but as it cannot be distributed for a fee, it is not accepted by the FSF.
[1] http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~ghost/gsview/LICENCE (see section 2.a)
Hi Stian,
as GSView is licensed under the Aladdin License we shouldn't add it to the site.
"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbour.
Software can be copied/distributed at virtually no cost. If you are not allowed to give a program to a person in need, that makes a program non-free. This can be done for a charge, if you so choose."
Aladdin does not allow you to redistribute the program for a charge.
Greets
HennR
Stian Rødven Eide schrieb:
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 14:56 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
The comments received so far are:
- Footer translation
- Moving text to "about"
Another two points I'd like to address are:
* change the title of the site to: pdfreaders.org "Get a Free Software PDF reader!"
* shouldn't we write the basic 4 freedoms to the frontsite, instead of just linking to them?
At least use, study, share, improve would be cool.
Greetings
HennR
Hi Henner,
* HennR hennr@fsfe.org [2009-01-07 21:09:12 +0100]:
Another two points I'd like to address are:
- change the title of the site to: pdfreaders.org "Get a Free Software
PDF reader!"
I agree!
- shouldn't we write the basic 4 freedoms to the frontsite, instead of
just linking to them?
e.g.:
"choice protects your basic 4 freedoms, "
-> to use study share and improve the software
"which give you control over".
Think that makes sense.
Best wishes, Matthias
Am Mittwoch, 7. Januar 2009 16:07:29 schrieb Stian Rødven Eide:
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 14:56 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
The comments received so far are:
- Footer translation
- Moving text to "about"
Which text?
Most of the text on the front page actually. My suggestion is to move all "propaganda" (which would probably be the three first paragraphs and the FSFE-links) to a separate about-page. This will make the front page less terrifying for luddites, and it would create an appearance of the site as "an helpful overview of PDF-readers" rather than "a pr-stunt for FSFE". (Note that I'm not suggesting pdfreaders.org is a pr-stunt, but I'm quite sure many people will read it that way.)
I am against (re)moving any of the text. The whole point of pdfreaders.org is increasing visibility of Free Software and informing about Software Freedom as an ethical issue. We can discuss whether the text meets these criteria, but I am decidedly *against* making pdfreaders a mere download-portal (which it would be with the text moved to "about").
I don't know if you meant that, I just wanted to make my PoV clear.
- Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
- sumatra pdf portable
It seems to be a hacked version of sumatra pdf. I don't see why we should include it since AFAICS it doesnt provide any extra benefits over sumatra pdf and will only confuse people. Power users who carry all their applications on their usb-stick around with them and which are heavy sumatra-users, will figure out sooner or later that there is a portable version.
- gnupdf is not a reader, it should be included in the "more information" part with the link they sent us for call for developers.
How about GSview? It is licensed under Aladding Free Public License[1]. It is arguably a Free license (at least, the arguments against proprietary software on pdfreaders.org does not apply to it), but as it cannot be distributed for a fee, it is not accepted by the FSF.
We can discuss whether prohibiting "distribution for a fee" (like cc-by-sa-nc) makes software unfree, but according to FSF and FSFE definitions it certainly does. If we refer to those definitions, we must adhere to them (or become hypocrites).
In Solidarity Hannes
Hi Hannes,
* Hannes Hauswedell hannes@fsfe.org [2009-01-07 21:19:48 +0100]:
I am against (re)moving any of the text. The whole point of pdfreaders.org is increasing visibility of Free Software and informing about Software Freedom as an ethical issue. We can discuss whether the text meets these criteria, but I am decidedly *against* making pdfreaders a mere download-portal (which it would be with the text moved to "about").
I fully agree with you. Else nobody will read it. Our goal is that people read this text, that they download the software is the second goal.
I don't know if you meant that, I just wanted to make my PoV clear.
- Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
- sumatra pdf portable
It seems to be a hacked version of sumatra pdf. I don't see why we should include it since AFAICS it doesnt provide any extra benefits over sumatra pdf and will only confuse people. Power users who carry all their applications on their usb-stick around with them and which are heavy sumatra-users, will figure out sooner or later that there is a portable version.
I tend to agree here.
- gnupdf is not a reader, it should be included in the "more information" part with the link they sent us for call for developers.
How about GSview? It is licensed under Aladding Free Public License[1]. It is arguably a Free license (at least, the arguments against proprietary software on pdfreaders.org does not apply to it), but as it cannot be distributed for a fee, it is not accepted by the FSF.
We can discuss whether prohibiting "distribution for a fee" (like cc-by-sa-nc) makes software unfree, but according to FSF and FSFE definitions it certainly does. If we refer to those definitions, we must adhere to them (or become hypocrites).
I think we should use our definitions ;)
Best wishes, Matthias
On Wed, 2009-01-07 at 21:19 +0100, Hannes Hauswedell wrote:
- Moving text to "about"
Which text?
Most of the text on the front page actually. My suggestion is to move all "propaganda" (which would probably be the three first paragraphs and the FSFE-links) to a separate about-page. This will make the front page less terrifying for luddites, and it would create an appearance of the site as "an helpful overview of PDF-readers" rather than "a pr-stunt for FSFE". (Note that I'm not suggesting pdfreaders.org is a pr-stunt, but I'm quite sure many people will read it that way.)
I am against (re)moving any of the text. The whole point of pdfreaders.org is increasing visibility of Free Software and informing about Software Freedom as an ethical issue. We can discuss whether the text meets these criteria, but I am decidedly *against* making pdfreaders a mere download-portal (which it would be with the text moved to "about").
I agree with your basic premise that promotion of Free Software is the ultimate goal, but believe that this goal is often better served by not putting the message in focus. The best promotion campains are the ones that doesn't look like promotion campains, so yes, my suggestion is to have pdfreaders.org *appear* like a download-portal, albeit a rather unique one. For one thing, I suspect many businesses and organisations will be reluctant to link to the page as it is now because they don't want to scare their customers/potential members with text they "might not understand". Of course, there should still be an explaining text on the front page, but limiting it to the paragraph before and the one after the download table will make it easier for many people and organisations to make use of it. If we want the page to be linked to by those that aren't already supporters of Free Software, we need to make that message *appear* secondary. If we do that, and have the explaining text on the about page instead, we will probably be able to recruit many more to the cause than we could with the present pages.
all the best, /Stian
Hi Stian,
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-08 13:20:11 +0100]:
I agree with your basic premise that promotion of Free Software is the ultimate goal, but believe that this goal is often better served by not putting the message in focus. The best promotion campains are the ones that doesn't look like promotion campains, so yes, my suggestion is to have pdfreaders.org *appear* like a download-portal, albeit a rather unique one. For one thing, I suspect many businesses and organisations will be reluctant to link to the page as it is now because they don't want to scare their customers/potential members with text they "might not understand".
I think those organisation will also not link to the page, because the PDF readers are technically not as good as Adobe Acrobat Reader.
So do you suggest to keep:
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software [to use study share improve...]
[list]
Other proprietary alternatives to Adobe’s PDF reader also exist, but like it, their internal working is a a trade secret and these programs do not respect your right to control your own privacy and data.
On the entry page and move the rest to about?
Best wishes, Matthias
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 14:09 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
I agree with your basic premise that promotion of Free Software is the ultimate goal, but believe that this goal is often better served by not putting the message in focus. The best promotion campains are the ones that doesn't look like promotion campains, so yes, my suggestion is to have pdfreaders.org *appear* like a download-portal, albeit a rather unique one. For one thing, I suspect many businesses and organisations will be reluctant to link to the page as it is now because they don't want to scare their customers/potential members with text they "might not understand".
I think those organisation will also not link to the page, because the PDF readers are technically not as good as Adobe Acrobat Reader.
I'm not too sure about that. The reason why people link to Adobe's reader is usually the lack of awareness of alternatives. The "technical quality" is also, I suspect, subordinate to speed and ease of use, which are both better with the Free readers.
So do you suggest to keep:
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software [to use study share improve...] [list] Other proprietary alternatives to Adobe’s PDF reader also exist, but like it, their internal working is a a trade secret and these programs do not respect your right to control your own privacy and data.
On the entry page and move the rest to about?
Exactly ;-)
all the best, /Stian
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-08 14:19:50 +0100]:
So do you suggest to keep:
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software [to use study share improve...] [list] Other proprietary alternatives to Adobe’s PDF reader also exist, but like it, their internal working is a a trade secret and these programs do not respect your right to control your own privacy and data.
On the entry page and move the rest to about?
Exactly ;-)
I tend to be against moving the text. As than we could also delete it. Nobody will read it when it is on another site.
Best wishes, Matthias
Matthias Kirschner schrieb:
- Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-08 14:19:50 +0100]:
So do you suggest to keep:
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software [to use study share improve...] [list] Other proprietary alternatives to Adobe’s PDF reader also exist, but like it, their internal working is a a trade secret and these programs do not respect your right to control your own privacy and data.
On the entry page and move the rest to about?
Exactly ;-)
I tend to be against moving the text. As than we could also delete it. Nobody will read it when it is on another site.
Best wishes, Matthias
Yes, that's also what I think.
Hannes' and my idea was to keep all the related infos compact on the frontsite.
Otherwise people will only use pdfreaders.org as a download portal, and that is not what it's done for.
I would be happy if we add the basic 4 freedoms to the frontside instead.
Greetings
HennR
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 01:07 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
I tend to be against moving the text. As than we could also delete it. Nobody will read it when it is on another site.
I disagree with your assumption and counter with mine ;-)
My belief is that the number of links to pdfreaders.org could be substantially higher if we moved the text. While most Free Software friendly organisations would have no second thoughts about linking to it, the site will not receive the exposure it deserves from outside the community as long as it appears to be directed towards potential Free Software activists. The added number of links would clearly outweigh the number of people not clicking on "About".
I think many organisations that don't know what Free Software is could be more easily convinced to link to pdfreaders.org if the text on the front page were "lighter". In my view, these are the people that we want to reach, as PDF readers in general could be a good way to show the diversity and possibilities of Free Software -- much because it breaks the preconceived notion of Adobe's monopoly on reader software.
If I still haven't managed to convince any of you than I shall concede. Although I feel strongly that this would be very advantageous for the campaign, I will now let the popular vote decide and not push the argument further.
all the best, /Stian
Hi Stian, Hi Henner, Hi Hannes,
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-09 14:49:32 +0100]:
On Fri, 2009-01-09 at 01:07 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
I tend to be against moving the text. As than we could also delete it. Nobody will read it when it is on another site.
I disagree with your assumption and counter with mine ;-)
My belief is that the number of links to pdfreaders.org could be substantially higher if we moved the text. While most Free Software friendly organisations would have no second thoughts about linking to it, the site will not receive the exposure it deserves from outside the community as long as it appears to be directed towards potential Free Software activists. The added number of links would clearly outweigh the number of people not clicking on "About".
I think many organisations that don't know what Free Software is could be more easily convinced to link to pdfreaders.org if the text on the front page were "lighter". In my view, these are the people that we want to reach, as PDF readers in general could be a good way to show the diversity and possibilities of Free Software -- much because it breaks the preconceived notion of Adobe's monopoly on reader software.
If I still haven't managed to convince any of you than I shall concede. Although I feel strongly that this would be very advantageous for the campaign, I will now let the popular vote decide and not push the argument further.
Here the pros and cons from my side _for_ moving the text. That is having the following paragraph as first paragraph:
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software[, which means that you can use, study, share, and improve it]:
[Table]
Other proprietary alternatives to Adobe’s PDF reader also exist, but like it, their internal working is a a trade secret and these programs do not respect your right to control your own privacy and data.
[Footnote]
And move the rest to About/Background. This way Free Software is also very prominent on the first page, but the background stuff about PDF and further info is moved.
Pro: - it looks less like an advertising campaign (which it actually is ;) ) - the first page is cleaner - more people might therefor link to it
Neg: - Not so many people will probably read the background about PDF - If "Open Standard" is not written on the front page, perhaps some governments don't want to link to us because it is good to link to "Open Standard" pages :)
Hannes, Henner, Stian (or anyone else): what do you think?
Best wishes, Matthias
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:42 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
And move the rest to About/Background. This way Free Software is also very prominent on the first page, but the background stuff about PDF and further info is moved.
Pro:
- it looks less like an advertising campaign (which it actually is ;) )
- the first page is cleaner
- more people might therefor link to it
Neg:
- Not so many people will probably read the background about PDF
I would think that if the number of links increase sufficiently, then eventually more people will read the about page than would visit the site at all with the current layout.
- If "Open Standard" is not written on the front page, perhaps some governments don't want to link to us because it is good to link to "Open Standard" pages :)
I wouldn't mind including a line or two about open standards on the front page. The current first paragraph can be a bit too confusing though, since it refers to the several versions of PDF and doesn't explain: * which ones are open and not * how one tells a version from another * how one is able to choose the version * which software makes open standards pdf's etc..
A compromise solution of sorts (with regards to my initial suggestion) would be to leave also the first paragraph on the front page, but end it with "learn more" or something similar - linking to a section on open PDF standards at the about page (which also could provide a list over free software that makes open standard PDF's). The front page would then look like this:
The Portable Document Format (PDF) is a popular format to publish formatted text and documents. Initially developed by Adobe, PDF was published, standardised, and further developed in multiple steps. As a result there are several different versions of it, some qualifying as an Open Standard, some certified by ISO, some encumbered by software patents. Learn more...
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software:
[Download table]
Other proprietary alternatives to Adobe’s PDF reader also exist, but like it, their internal working is a a trade secret and these programs do not respect your right to control your own privacy and data. Learn more...
all the best, /Stian
Hi,
I can't see the neccessity for moving things. I haven't yet tried convincing other sites to add the button, but I don't think that people really care whether there is one paragraph or three, when deciding to add a button to their site.
On the other hand it will IMHO drastically reduce the number of people that actually read about Free Software. It will also increase the amount of companies that want their proprietary viewer added, because they didnt get that *this is a campaign*. Also I think that we definitely need to include the arguments about open standards, because in contrast to Software Freedom, Open Standards and vendor neutrality are already perceived as issues by many organisations and will make it *more* likely for the buttons to be included.
We could maybe still shorten the text if you believe thats important.
My Proposal (I included a note on inter-operability, since thats a famous buzz-word and changed the wording where it made more sense in short form): ---------------- The Portable Document Format (PDF) is a popular format to publish formatted text and documents. There are several different versions of it, some qualifying as an Open Standard, some certified by ISO, some encumbered by software patents. You might want to promote the versions that are Open Standards, because Open Standards guarentee inter-operability, competition and choice. Read more...
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software, i.e. software that respects your basic four freedoms, which give you control over your computer and help protect your privacy. Read more... --------------
The first "Read more" would lead to more facts about PDF and also maybe about standards, patents and document freedom.
The second "Read more" would elaborate on Software Freedom. We could also omit the second "read more" and just hyperlink "four freedoms" and "Free Software" but that might reduce the clicks on it...
These texts would have to written by someone before the site gets updated.
In Solidarity Hannes
Am Mittwoch, 14. Januar 2009 14:07:51 schrieb Stian Rødven Eide:
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 13:42 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
And move the rest to About/Background. This way Free Software is also very prominent on the first page, but the background stuff about PDF and further info is moved.
Pro:
- it looks less like an advertising campaign (which it actually is ;) )
- the first page is cleaner
- more people might therefor link to it
Neg:
- Not so many people will probably read the background about PDF
I would think that if the number of links increase sufficiently, then eventually more people will read the about page than would visit the site at all with the current layout.
- If "Open Standard" is not written on the front page, perhaps some governments don't want to link to us because it is good to link to "Open Standard" pages :)
I wouldn't mind including a line or two about open standards on the front page. The current first paragraph can be a bit too confusing though, since it refers to the several versions of PDF and doesn't explain:
- which ones are open and not
- how one tells a version from another
- how one is able to choose the version
- which software makes open standards pdf's
etc..
A compromise solution of sorts (with regards to my initial suggestion) would be to leave also the first paragraph on the front page, but end it with "learn more" or something similar - linking to a section on open PDF standards at the about page (which also could provide a list over free software that makes open standard PDF's). The front page would then look like this:
The Portable Document Format (PDF) is a popular format to publish formatted text and documents. Initially developed by Adobe, PDF was published, standardised, and further developed in multiple steps. As a result there are several different versions of it, some qualifying as an Open Standard, some certified by ISO, some encumbered by software patents. Learn more... There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software: [Download table] Other proprietary alternatives to Adobe’s PDF reader also exist, but like it, their internal working is a a trade secret and these programs do not respect your right to control your own privacy and data. Learn more...
all the best, /Stian
Pdfreaders mailing list Pdfreaders@lists.fsfe.org https://lists.fsfe.org/mailman/listinfo/pdfreaders
On Wed, 2009-01-14 at 22:06 +0100, Hannes Hauswedell wrote:
Hi,
I can't see the neccessity for moving things. I haven't yet tried convincing other sites to add the button, but I don't think that people really care whether there is one paragraph or three, when deciding to add a button to their site.
I don't think it's the amount of text in itself, but rather the general appearance of the front page that will be a factor. My previous employer would for instance never link to a campaign, while a download portal might be concidered ok. My point is that I believe this campaign will be more successful if it doesn't appear to be one. From everyone else's comments it seems, however, that I'm the only one who believes so, and wouldn't want to force a compromise - but would of course appreciate it if we reached an agreement on the issue.
On the other hand it will IMHO drastically reduce the number of people that actually read about Free Software. It will also increase the amount of companies that want their proprietary viewer added, because they didnt get that *this is a campaign*. Also I think that we definitely need to include the arguments about open standards, because in contrast to Software Freedom, Open Standards and vendor neutrality are already perceived as issues by many organisations and will make it *more* likely for the buttons to be included.
This is a good point.
We could maybe still shorten the text if you believe thats important.
If we want to make it clear that it is a campaign, then it is probably not necessary. If we want to make it less obvious, then yes.
My Proposal (I included a note on inter-operability, since thats a famous buzz-word and changed the wording where it made more sense in short form):
I really like your proposal. It is a lovely compromise between my suggestion and the current text. But, as I mentioned, I don't want to force a compromise if we don't agree that it's a wise course of action.
The Portable Document Format (PDF) is a popular format to publish formatted text and documents. There are several different versions of it, some qualifying as an Open Standard, some certified by ISO, some encumbered by software patents. You might want to promote the versions that are Open Standards, because Open Standards guarentee inter-operability, competition and choice. Read more...
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software, i.e. software that respects your basic four freedoms, which give you control over your computer and help protect your privacy. Read more...
The first "Read more" would lead to more facts about PDF and also maybe about standards, patents and document freedom.
The second "Read more" would elaborate on Software Freedom. We could also omit the second "read more" and just hyperlink "four freedoms" and "Free Software" but that might reduce the clicks on it...
These texts would have to written by someone before the site gets updated.
If we go for this option, I could try to make a first draft of the PDF-text. The second "read more" could link to FSFE's "about Free Software" page.
all the best, /Stian
My Proposal (I included a note on inter-operability, since thats a famous buzz-word and changed the wording where it made more sense in short form):
I really like your proposal. It is a lovely compromise between my suggestion and the current text. But, as I mentioned, I don't want to force a compromise if we don't agree that it's a wise course of action.
I am fine with changing the text to my proposal :D It includes all points that I think are important.
The Portable Document Format (PDF) is a popular format to publish formatted text and documents. There are several different versions of it, some qualifying as an Open Standard, some certified by ISO, some encumbered by software patents. You might want to promote the versions that are Open Standards, because Open Standards guarentee inter-operability, competition and choice. Read more...
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software, i.e. software that respects your basic four freedoms, which give you control over your computer and help protect your privacy. Read more...
The first "Read more" would lead to more facts about PDF and also maybe about standards, patents and document freedom.
The second "Read more" would elaborate on Software Freedom. We could also omit the second "read more" and just hyperlink "four freedoms" and "Free Software" but that might reduce the clicks on it...
These texts would have to written by someone before the site gets updated.
If we go for this option, I could try to make a first draft of the PDF-text. The second "read more" could link to FSFE's "about Free Software" page.
Sounds good. :)
Hannes
Hi Hannes, Hi Stian, Hi Henner,
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-15 13:19:51 +0100]:
My Proposal (I included a note on inter-operability, since thats a famous buzz-word and changed the wording where it made more sense in short form):
I really like your proposal. It is a lovely compromise between my suggestion and the current text. But, as I mentioned, I don't want to force a compromise if we don't agree that it's a wise course of action.
I would also be fine with that. I would propose:
The Portable Document Format (PDF) is a popular format to publish formatted text and documents. There are several different versions of it, some qualifying as an Open Standard, some certified by ISO, some encumbered by software patents. You might want to promote the versions that are Open Standards, because Open Standards guarentee inter-operability, competition and choice. Read more...
Make [Read more] a link to http://www.fsfeurope.org/projects/os/os.en.html
There are many programs to read and write PDF documents. The following list of PDF readers is vendor neutral. All of them are Free Software, i.e. software that respects your basic four freedoms, which give you control over your computer and help protect your privacy. Read more...
Make [Read more] a link to http://www.fsfeurope.org/documents/freesoftware.en.html
The first "Read more" would lead to more facts about PDF and also maybe about standards, patents and document freedom.
The second "Read more" would elaborate on Software Freedom. We could also omit the second "read more" and just hyperlink "four freedoms" and "Free Software" but that might reduce the clicks on it...
These texts would have to written by someone before the site gets updated.
If we go for this option, I could try to make a first draft of the PDF-text. The second "read more" could link to FSFE's "about Free Software" page.
I would try to link to fsfeurope.org for explaining Free Software and Open Standards.
Beside that please go ahead :)
Best wishes, Matthias
On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 12:43 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
I really like your proposal. It is a lovely compromise between my suggestion and the current text. But, as I mentioned, I don't want to force a compromise if we don't agree that it's a wise course of action.
I would also be fine with that.
Great! What do you think Henner?
I would try to link to fsfeurope.org for explaining Free Software and Open Standards.
That's a good suggestion, and probably the best option if we want to upgrade the site rather immediately.
However, I still think it's a bit problematic that there aren't any pages (to my knowledge) that explains the Open Standards issue on a strictly PDF basis. Seeing that we want people to use some PDF versions and stay away from others, it would be nice to be able to link to a text that explains the difference and the available options. If there really aren't any pages like this around, I actually think it would be our responsibility to provide one (not that I know the answers either). Maybe something for next PDFreaders upgrade?
all the best, /Stian
Am Samstag, 17. Januar 2009 13:10:01 schrieb Stian Rødven Eide:
On Sat, 2009-01-17 at 12:43 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
I really like your proposal. It is a lovely compromise between my suggestion and the current text. But, as I mentioned, I don't want to force a compromise if we don't agree that it's a wise course of action.
I would also be fine with that.
Great! What do you think Henner?
I would try to link to fsfeurope.org for explaining Free Software and Open Standards.
That's a good suggestion, and probably the best option if we want to upgrade the site rather immediately.
However, I still think it's a bit problematic that there aren't any pages (to my knowledge) that explains the Open Standards issue on a strictly PDF basis. Seeing that we want people to use some PDF versions and stay away from others, it would be nice to be able to link to a text that explains the difference and the available options. If there really aren't any pages like this around, I actually think it would be our responsibility to provide one (not that I know the answers either).
I agree. The first "Read More" should definitely contain more information about PDF, not Open Standards in general.
Maybe something for next PDFreaders upgrade?
I would be fine with that, too (linking to fsfeurope.org for now and changing that later). But someone should work on that text about PDF. (I don't have time)
Greetings Hannes
Hi Hannes, Hi Henner, Hi Stian,
* Hannes Hauswedell hannes@fsfe.org [2009-01-17 19:09:30 +0100]:
Maybe something for next PDFreaders upgrade?
I would be fine with that, too (linking to fsfeurope.org for now and changing that later). But someone should work on that text about PDF. (I don't have time)
I will also not have time to work on that. So Stian, I think when you have time beside the birthday preperations you can write a new text, check if that is ok with people on this list, and afterwards the new text should be approved for the European level in the PR tracker (as it is an official FSFE campaign with logo etc.).
Else I would also be fine with keeping the current text and updating it later.
Best wishes, Matthias
On Mon, 2009-01-19 at 18:52 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
Hi Hannes, Hi Henner, Hi Stian,
- Hannes Hauswedell hannes@fsfe.org [2009-01-17 19:09:30 +0100]:
Maybe something for next PDFreaders upgrade?
I would be fine with that, too (linking to fsfeurope.org for now and changing that later). But someone should work on that text about PDF. (I don't have time)
I will also not have time to work on that. So Stian, I think when you have time beside the birthday preperations you can write a new text, check if that is ok with people on this list, and afterwards the new text should be approved for the European level in the PR tracker (as it is an official FSFE campaign with logo etc.).
Else I would also be fine with keeping the current text and updating it later.
I'd be happy to write the text, but figure it's also a matter of research - which could take some time. As such, I think it's a wise idea to getting the initial site upgrade done first.
/Stian
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-07 16:07:29 +0100]:
Last time I checked it looked good with IE.
It doesn't look too bad, but not exactly identical with what standards-compliant browsers show. The main bugs are the lack of margins and centering, and there are rather simple workarounds to fix them (although they require <div>-wrappers in the html).
Hm, I do not know if we should start to make our html bad, because of IE's bugs.
- Alphabetize the readers
- Add more buttons (+ sources and license)
- localised version on the localised pages
Does anyone know whether there's a simple way of doing this with webgen? It would be preferable to not having to enter different filenames on the different languages, but rather having webgen fetch the graphic with the filename that corresponds with the language.
No, I don't know. Would it be a problem to add the link in the language to graphic.de.png?
Best wishes, Matthias
On Thu, 2009-01-08 at 01:18 +0100, Matthias Kirschner wrote:
Last time I checked it looked good with IE.
It doesn't look too bad, but not exactly identical with what standards-compliant browsers show. The main bugs are the lack of margins and centering, and there are rather simple workarounds to fix them (although they require <div>-wrappers in the html).
Hm, I do not know if we should start to make our html bad, because of IE's bugs.
It wouldn't be bad html, just an unnecessary amount of it. That said, I don't mind having suboptimal support for IE.
- Add more buttons (+ sources and license)
- localised version on the localised pages
Does anyone know whether there's a simple way of doing this with webgen? It would be preferable to not having to enter different filenames on the different languages, but rather having webgen fetch the graphic with the filename that corresponds with the language.
No, I don't know. Would it be a problem to add the link in the language to graphic.de.png?
It's not a problem, but having the corresponding graphics filenames fetched automatically would simplify the process of receiving and uploading the translations a bit, as the translator wouldn't necessarily be aware that they need to be changed. Looking at webgen's possibilities in general, it should be doable, but for me to find out how it can be done might take more time than fixing all the filenames manually.
/Stian
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-08 14:15:36 +0100]:
It doesn't look too bad, but not exactly identical with what standards-compliant browsers show. The main bugs are the lack of margins and centering, and there are rather simple workarounds to fix them (although they require <div>-wrappers in the html).
Hm, I do not know if we should start to make our html bad, because of IE's bugs.
It wouldn't be bad html, just an unnecessary amount of it. That said, I don't mind having suboptimal support for IE.
This task has low priority from my side.
No, I don't know. Would it be a problem to add the link in the language to graphic.de.png?
It's not a problem, but having the corresponding graphics filenames fetched automatically would simplify the process of receiving and uploading the translations a bit, as the translator wouldn't necessarily be aware that they need to be changed. Looking at webgen's possibilities in general, it should be doable, but for me to find out how it can be done might take more time than fixing all the filenames manually.
You can ask on the webgen mailing list.
Best wishes, Matthias
* Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-07 14:42:00 +0100]:
The comments received so far are:
- Footer translation
- Moving text to "about"
- Fixing css and adding wrappers for ie compatibility
- Alphabetize the readers
- Add more buttons (+ sources and license)
- Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
- Add Windows + MacOSX version of Okular (think about if we should give a label to it.) Meanwhile I think we should just add it as "download", too. If we start to estimate the difficult of installing that will be much work. So I would just add the two.
Best wishes, Matthias
Hi Matthias, I installed KDE for Windows (I couldn't find an Okular installer).
It's kinda difficult to install all these applications as there is no option to install only Okular (and it needed >500MB, and there is no deinstaller).
So if there is a specified installer for Okular we should immediately add it to our site, but in the current form.
Greetings
HennR
Matthias Kirschner schrieb:
- Stian Rødven Eide stian@fsfeurope.org [2009-01-07 14:42:00 +0100]:
The comments received so far are:
- Footer translation
- Moving text to "about"
- Fixing css and adding wrappers for ie compatibility
- Alphabetize the readers
- Add more buttons (+ sources and license)
- Add more readers? GSview? Gnupdf.org
- Add Windows + MacOSX version of Okular (think about if we should give a label to it.) Meanwhile I think we should just add it as "download", too. If we start to estimate the difficult of installing that will be much work. So I would just add the two.
Best wishes, Matthias