Discussion:
Some comments on the PEAR site
(too old to reply)
Bill Norton
2008-03-27 17:02:06 UTC
Permalink
This is an email I sent to Daniel O'Conner. He suggested that I include pear-***@lists.php.net on any of my replies so that the entire conversation remains intact.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hi Daniel -

Thank you for your measured and diplomatic response to my rant. Let me comment on some of the specific items you ask about.

Color Scheme: Let me make it clear that the problem that I have with the way the links are styled is not that you can't see them, but rather that they are almost indistinguishable from the text. The text is black and the links are dark green (#006600). While that may be OK for many, for my 60-year old eyes, there's just not enough contrast to make the links pop out, especially when the link is separated from the text. For example, take a look at http://pear.php.net/package/pearweb and notice how "PHP License" is separate from any other content. It's very hard for me to tell that that's a link based on any visual clues. You need something else to make it obvious to the user where the links are. This could be done simply by using the default text-decoration styling which would underline all links.

A more readable example: Take a look at Harry Fuecks article over at Sitepoint, "Getting Started with PEAR - PHP's Low Hanging Fruit" (http://www.sitepoint.com/article/getting-started-with-pear). While that style might be a bit chatty and informal for the PEAR site, it is much clearer about what PEAR is, why you might want to use it, and how to go about installing it.

Keep in mind who your audience is. I'd wager that the vast majority of your visitors come to your site because they've heard about this PEAR thing and want to know if and how it will be of any benefit to them. You've got maybe two minutes to sell them on the "product" before they wander off somewhere else. Actually two minutes may be generous. There are actual metrics on this sort of thing, but I can't remember where I saw them.

I'd also wager that almost no one comes to the site to see what the latest changes are (the "Hot off the Press" section for the PEAR site). I realize that this probably doesn't sit well with the developers who have been working their asses off to make those changes, but in reality most users really don't care. So don't put something on the first page that most users don't care about.

Once the user is convinced that PEAR is of some value to them , the next thing they will want to do is install it. That's why you need a big, stinkin' "Install PEAR" button on the home page. The new approach you are suggesting on Flicker (http://www.flickr.com/photos/clockwerx/2340532410/) strikes me as a great improvement.

OK, that's all for now. I'd actually like to hear other's comments on all of this.

Bill Norton
Daniel O'Connor
2008-03-30 10:11:29 UTC
Permalink
*kicks spam filter*

On Sun, Mar 30, 2008 at 8:36 PM, Daniel O'Connor
Bill,
Are you able to comment more on what got you onto the pear site in the
first place?
Did you have a specific problem to solve?
(IE, 'I want to deal with a database, and someone has suggested
PEAR::DB / MDB2")
Did you follow a link from somewhere?
Did someone tell you about it? ("Use XYZ!")
Do any of the below problems seem like problems you encountered?
Others;
I'd just like to throw a link into the conversation thread, to garner
any feedback.
clockwerx.blogspot.com/2008/03/pear-forums-and-first-line-support.html
You might need to open the screenshots full size to get a good
appreciation for them.
One of the mistakes a lot of people probably make (or at least I dimly
remember making) was using the "Download" action on a package
homepage.
I had no idea what to do with a .tar.gz file, and wasn't aware that
'go-pear' could be done.
If we were to improve the package download page so that it suggested
*install* was the easier option
flickr.com/photos/clockwerx/2372804033/sizes/o/
... and provided links to information like "Installing pear - go-pear"
and "Installing packages", "Why can't I install this on my shared
host", "Why does xampp hate me?"
flickr.com/photos/clockwerx/2372786083/sizes/o/
If I'm looking at a package, and I'm a semi experienced developer; I
probably want to know what the API is like. We should remove the 'end
user documentation' link where possible in favour of a documentation
table of contents or 'example usage in 15 lines or less'.
We should also link to other resources - "Get help with HTML_Quickform
on irc.freenode.net #quickform", for instance.
--
Looking for a new php job? See what you can do with
https://vx.valex.com.au/tests/season/
Bill Norton
2008-03-31 15:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Hi Daniel et al -

Well, Daniel, I certainly admire your dedication to PEAR. I wish I could
help you out more, but I've got to start making some money.

From looking at your comments, particularly your blog over at Clockwerx, I
think you have a pretty good handle on the usability issues that have been
such an obstacle to PEAR. However I would encourage you to simply toss the
existing site design and start over from scratch rather than try to tweak
what you have.

In one of your posts you linked to an example of an open source product with
a good interface, but for the life of me I can't find it. Instead let me
give a quick critique to the Ruby on Rails (http://www.rubyonrails.org/)
site.

The RoR site starts out strong with big, obvious links to the things that
most visitors will be interested in: Get Excited (what RoR does and can do
for you), Get Started (how to download and install RoR), Get Better (books
and training for RoR), and Get Involved (invitation to developers). Then
there are some paragraphs giving an overview of RoR. So far so good.
Unfortunately it looks like at this point they let the techno-geeks take
over from the graphic designers.

Let's look at the content of the "What's in the Package?" section. It starts
out with " Rails is a full-stack framework for developing database-backed
web applications according to the Model-View-Control pattern." Oh. Dear.
God. So Rails is a "full-stack" framework, eh? Well. I know about
frameworks, but I've never hear of a "full-stack" framework, so I google.
The first hit is a technical blog discussing the difference between "glue"
and "full-stack" and seems directed at academics and industry analysts
rather than actual developers (RoR's audience). The next two Google hits are
directly related to Rails itself. This tells me that I'm not the only one
who's never heard of a "full-stack framework". So right away the vast
majority of the site's visitors are going "Full-stack...wha?" That term has
told them absolutely nothing and has probably turned off a lot of them.

Then in that same first sentence they use the term "Model-View-Control
pattern". While the concept is probably familiar to most visitors
(separating business logic, data, and interface) the term itself may be
obscure to many. Not as bad as "full-stack", but still...

You have to wonder what they were hoping to accomplish with that sentence
because I don't think it worked.

Best of luck with everyone's efforts to make PEAR more usable.

Bill Norton

Loading...