| |
Foundation RISC User online |
| |
(11:35 23/2/2001)
Chris Williams (18:48 23/2/2001)
Rob Kendrick (18:13 26/2/2001)
Chris Williams (22:40 26/2/2001)
Tim Fountain (18:34 27/2/2001)
Richard James C. But (21:00 28/2/2001)
Steve knutson (23:58 28/2/2001)
Sendu Bala (08:44 1/3/2001)
Chris Williams (18:54 1/3/2001)
Nick Wright (20:32 1/3/2001)
Lee Johnston (21:32 1/3/2001)
[mentat] (23:39 1/3/2001)
Sendu Bala (08:55 2/3/2001)
Chris Williams (10:15 2/3/2001)
Sendu Bala (15:34 2/3/2001)
Chris Williams (21:48 2/3/2001)
Richard James C. But (23:14 2/3/2001)
|
| |
|
march |
Message #88341, posted at 11:35, 23/2/2001 |
| Unregistered user
|
<moaning as always>
they might have mentioned it on www.riscos.com/news/ ...
</shut up>
|
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #88342, posted at 18:48, 23/2/2001, in reply to message #88341 |
| Unregistered user
|
There's something far more important there I'm afraid.. ;)
Chris (Drobe News) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Rob Kendrick |
Message #88343, posted at 18:13, 26/2/2001, in reply to message #88342 |
| Unregistered user
|
When RISCOS Ltd. launched their site, it was branded as being awful. It was. They've decided not to change it. The site is getting worse. It's one of the worst organised websites I've seen in some time (downloads not being in the section you'd think they would be, but in news, for example.)
I've already offered to give the site a makeover at cost, but they insisted the website was perfect. It's not what you could call a good advert for RISC OS, is it? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #88344, posted at 22:40, 26/2/2001, in reply to message #88343 |
| Unregistered user
|
Layout wise, I like the RO Ltd. site. Content wise it is unfortunately lacking and as you say Rob, it is further devolving.
There are other sites around that do a great job at promoting, shall we say, RISC OS. With RO Ltd. being the organisation it is, I can see the website being right down their list of priorities.
Chris (Drobe) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Tim Fountain |
Message #88345, posted at 18:34, 27/2/2001, in reply to message #88344 |
| Unregistered user
|
At least it looks a fraction better than it did before I emailed them an anti-aliased version of the RISCOS Ltd. logo...
But yes it is very poor. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard James C. But |
Message #88346, posted at 21:00, 28/2/2001, in reply to message #88345 |
| Unregistered user
|
The site is A W F U L , it the worst i've seen ( and that includes the 404 Error !
I'd repair or re-make their website for free.
Some news on 4.5 or 5 would be nice, just look at www.apple.com they have the latest screenshots from MacOS X and there is a nice random image each time just to mention a few.
Did RO Ltd. make such a rubbish website just so Webster,ArcWeb and Fresco users could view it. come on ! this is the world of Oregano.
To sum up my comment, there website is worse than the English in my reply.
Tim, I think it's great that they accepted your Anti-Aliased logo.
Richard. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Steve knutson |
Message #88347, posted at 23:58, 28/2/2001, in reply to message #88346 |
| Unregistered user
|
I agree, www.riscos.com is UGLY! Would you buy anything of them after seeing the website?
Thankfully RISCOS Ltd are better are producing software than they are at building websites...Perhaps they should consider getting someone who is good at building websites to make them one. Same goes for Microdigital
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Sendu Bala |
Message #88348, posted at 08:44, 1/3/2001, in reply to message #88347 |
| Unregistered user
|
But the bizarre thing is, these companies refuse offers from people to redesign their websites for free. With no obligation to use. They just say no.
I really don't understand them at all. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #88349, posted at 18:54, 1/3/2001, in reply to message #88348 |
| Unregistered user
|
I honestly don't think (layout/graphic wise) the RO site is that bad. As for the lack of development news, well that is why sites like iconbar.com and drobe.co.uk exist.
I would rather they concentrate on RISC OS than a website.
Chris (speaking personally now) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Nick Wright |
Message #88350, posted at 20:32, 1/3/2001, in reply to message #88349 |
| Unregistered user
|
I don't like RISC OS Ltd.'s site at all. Its too big and clunky and the lack of development news is frustrating. But then I would prefer them to be developing the OS rather than maintaining a website. The occasional progress report wouldnt hurt though.
Furthermore, wasnt RISC OS 4.5 supposed to be ready in time for Wakefield 2001? Not long to go and Ive heard nothing. Do foundation members know anything? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Lee Johnston |
Message #88351, posted at 21:32, 1/3/2001, in reply to message #88350 |
| Unregistered user
|
IIRC at RISC OS 2000 the suggested launch date was around June / July 2001
However I seem to remember reading that the RiscStation laptop will finally be on sale at Wakefield
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
[mentat] |
Message #88352, posted at 23:39, 1/3/2001, in reply to message #88351 |
| Unregistered user
|
That laptop is already "on sale" (i.e. taking orders). It's a working prototype we need to see. And since this odd discussion of the ROL website refuses to go away ;-) I can't resist adding my 17 cents worth: I've seen a lot of "commercial" websites that are a /lot/ worse.
In fact this one is quite attractive in a happy, colourful way, and looks quite nice in 24 bit colour at 1024 x 768 (which is really what anyone who has any interest in the site should be running!). Navigation is a bit "clunky" I agree, but it's no biggy - at least the site is relatively quick to load.
And finally <applause!>, how does Richard JCB define "rubbish" and what is that Fresco comment all about? Hmm...? |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Sendu Bala |
Message #88353, posted at 08:55, 2/3/2001, in reply to message #88352 |
| Unregistered user
|
There are obviously many many much more awful sites out there (http://www.somethingawful.com), the ROL site is just a shoddy, middle-of-the-road 2nd generation website. It's beyond the 'page of text broken up with <HR>s' (1st generation), but is a perfectly bland example of 'replace the text links with some meaningless pictures' website. At first glance you might think they were using some kind of metaphor, what with the jigsaw pieces, but since these shapes don't turn up elsewhere on the site, it's just a waste of bandwidth on the front page.
Navigation problems? Doesn't _have_ navigation, basically. And as has been pointed out, the structure is lowest order. Sorry, how many sections are there crammed onto the front page? Yikes!
Then of course there's the point that they've put minimal effort into the very limited content the site actually contains.
And the whole 'I'd rather they spent time developing RISC OS' argument simply doesn't hold water. Remember, independent people are offering their services for free. There is NO excuse for the ROL site to be as naff as it is. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #88354, posted at 10:15, 2/3/2001, in reply to message #88353 |
| Unregistered user
|
In RISC OS Ltd.'s case, I fear their link with Pace severly limits the release of development news. RISC OS is a very valuable asset which is something the two would like to keep away from prying eyes.
This is why they, (and Microdigital refused free website design offers too), will not take on external website designers as this would mean further disclosure of secrets shall we say, of RISC OS development.
Unfortunately this damages RO user moral and expectations as we never know what is due to come out until it has. It is something I have accepted over time, it'll be alright on the night ;p
The RO Ltd. site has a smart front page, slightly cluttered towards the bottom; no nasty navigation bars or annoying flashy stuff; content is filed under appropiate headings- in short it would be nice to hear what people want to see in a (primarily RISC OS) website. Other than information on RISC OS, I really can't see what else they could put up there on riscos.com. There's the resourceful Foundation area, the Products database and the odd download, let's not be forgetting the 32bit support.
Gah, this is nearly a rant so I'll stop for now.
Chris (speaking personally now) |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Sendu Bala |
Message #88355, posted at 15:34, 2/3/2001, in reply to message #88354 |
| Unregistered user
|
Not wanting further disclosure? Doesn't work as an argument. When they're ready to release info they send it to who ever offered to maintain the site for free. That person gets to see that information a few minutes before everyone else. So what?
Or they could just accept a new design and maintain it themselves.
What else could they put on the site? How about _any_ information that is useful to someone who has never heard of/used RISC OS before? Of the little info directly related to RO4 there is, it is of a technical(ish) slant aimed at people who are already thinking about upgrading from RO3. The site is of no use whatsoever to other RO users and non RO users.
I could rant on about why the site is bad for content-unrelated reasons, but the point has been made. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Chris Williams |
Message #88356, posted at 21:48, 2/3/2001, in reply to message #88355 |
| Unregistered user
|
Those were some good points. I agree with the information for those who wish to upgrade ro3->4 (although this is in the installation guide).
The guide to RO4 for newbies is an essential and I'm sad that this is the only major feature lacking.
(btw, I've been informed that Microdigital have been in talks with someone to take over their infamous website ;)
Chris |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Richard James C. But |
Message #88357, posted at 23:14, 2/3/2001, in reply to message #88356 |
| Unregistered user
|
By "rubbish" I mean text with meaningless pictures.
The Fresco comment refereed to Fresco < 1.5 which doesn’t support frames or a host of other vital things.
Actually, the only websites that we should show to a new user are Cerilica,Castle and Icon Technology <open to additions>.
Riscstation's UK website is also "rubbish" , it was made on Netfusion for Windows (?!?).
Microdigital : least said the better.
RISC OS Ltd : I think that has been well talked about.
I think that a website [ for ROL ] somewhere between CTL's and Celirica's would be appreciated by most.
</open to discussion>
|
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
