Talk:Main Page

From BB4Win Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Layout of main page

I know the current way of doing hedings doesn't really come out nice, but it's important to keep BB4Win based shells and Bluebox seperate. Also, a heirarchy is important. 

BB4Win
 |- xoblite
 `- BBLean
     `- bbleanmod
Bluebox

So, until I can figure something out, leave xoblite, bblean, and bbleanmod in the current setup. Or propose something differant here. --Tresni 19:29, 9 March 2006 (PST)

That diagram says more than any array of paragraphs ever could. Looks great, Tres`ni. --Xavier-DL 06:36, 10 March 2006 (PST)

I think we need to trim down the main page into a more simple "directory"-style page for a cleaner look and better navigation. I would propose turning the subheadings for each shell into a link for that shell's page, and move all the background information there (where the information could be expanded). --Jahandar 19:12, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

Update.. I started a making a revamped version of the webpage. The idea was to make the main page more of an outline for people to easily find the information the want, instead of having it burdened with so much text. There is still more that could be improved, but you can see the general idea on this page. I'm not looking to step on any toes, so I'll wait for an okay before going further. --Jahandar 20:27, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

[edit] Forking

Actually, does anyone know whether or not Xoblite and BBLC/BBLean split from the same BB4Win version? Perhaps it could show major revisions, too. --Xavier-DL 06:47, 10 March 2006 (PST)

No they didn't, xoblite is from 0.70 iirc and BBLC was 0.89 --Tres`ni 16:55, 10 March 2006 (PST)

If bbleanmod becomes a fork all it's own, would it still fall under bblean? I mean, it's more than likely going to get a new name and probably, but not known, a different core structure. If that takes place, would it still be concidered a bblean branch or a blackbox branch all it's own? --NightBreed

Because it's code started as a bblean fork, it will always be a fork of bblean. ;) P.S. use ~~~~ to "sign" comments easily --Tres`ni 16:55, 10 March 2006 (PST)


[edit] Off Topic

"...a fork all its own..." "Because its code..." It's means it is. Grammar police on patrol, here. ;) --Xavier-DL 17:44, 10 March 2006 (PST)

but it is being used in place of a name.. so saying "it's name" be the same as saying "nightbreed's name" wouldn't it? Mind you, I'm not saying you're wrong, just seemed saying "it's" seemed appropiate in that instance... lol..

Its carries no apostrophe for the same reason his and hers carry none. _it's_ vs. _its_ Or It on Wiktionary :) --Xavier-DL 04:41, 11 March 2006 (PST)
Glad to see I'm not the only grammar-nazi around here. :P --Pkt-zer0

[edit] Styles

I'd like to propose the wiki get a styles section. --Cthu1hu

I'm actually for having thewayofzen & snkmchnb's style tutorial wikified. Along with the most excellent plugin guide. --Pkt-zer0
It's easy to add a styles section: Styles Done ;) --Tres`ni 13:30, 17 March 2006 (PST)

[edit] Subsections for Plugins and Styles

I added subheaders for main pages dealing with Plugins and Styles. I think the plugin list is among the most potentially useful pages in wiki, and thought it deserved a more prominent link (and did the same for styles, for consistency). I hope this wasn't to drastic a change, though I'm not sure if anyone else is even still around to scold me anyway... :) --Jahandar 18:59, 21 March 2008 (PDT)

[edit] Wiki Logo

We need a wiki logo, people. Since most of the community probably isn't going to check this wiki yet, I think we need a forum topic. Can you make an announcement, Tres`ni? --Malnilion 06:42, 22 March 2006 (PST)

Will do --Tres`ni 10:54, 23 March 2006 (PST)
New logo looks great! --Malnilion 06:18, 24 March 2006 (PST)

[edit] How much information are we going to have on the main page?

I'm not trying to be too touchy about this, but it's clearly unfair for bbLean to have as much information put right on the front page as it does (written in a somewhat biased manner) when the other shells do not have the same depth of information yet. I was going to propose this later, but I think that we need to establish just how much information ought to be put on the main page as a synopsis of each shell and then have a "see main article for more information" sort of thing. Again, I'm not trying to sound like I'm bitching, I just think that there's a better place to really start discussing each shell's features. Also, I'm thinking it would be nice if we could make a table comparing major features (with each item in the table linking to a short stub of an article explaining the feature and possibly including screenshots). --Malnilion 06:12, 27 March 2006 (PST)

"bbLean has a menu scripting language that is richer than that of other shells." <--- Does that not sound biased? I mean I'm really not trying to sound like I'm bitching, but bbLean has only a couple things that BB4Win, xoblite, and Bluebox don't have and even if these differences are going to be discussed, I think it should be in a separate article completely dedicated to bbLean. --Malnilion 06:15, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Yeah, the more I read the bbLean section right now, the more I just want to vomit (I'm sorry, whoever has written all the new text). It is very opinionated throughout the entire section and then it starts talking about how xoblite's menus are generally considered more esthetically pleasing. Those statements are so intangible they cannot be supported with fact. I say we should stick to the facts. --Malnilion 06:34, 27 March 2006 (PST)

The information was moved to the bbLean article, though it should almost be it's own article bbLean and xoblite differances or something.. 1) More indepth information then needed for the main page. 2) POV is way skewed. --Tres`ni 11:32, 27 March 2006 (PST)

[edit] Specific problems with information

From the Blackbox for Windows secion: "Blackbox is often touted as using fewer system resources than Windows—a claim that may not be accurate in many cases." <--- I was almost certain when I was reading this quote that it was a load of crap because BB has never exceeded the enormous amount of resource use that Explorer has for me. Then again, I'm no programmer so I can't really confirm this, but even when I have a LOT of plugins loaded, BB is never anywhere close to Explorer's resource hogging. --Malnilion 06:22, 27 March 2006 (PST)

[edit] What is Talk and What is Not

"Blackbox is often touted as using fewer system resources than Windows—a claim that may not be accurate in many cases. It is also difficult to characterize a Blackbox environment as spartan or minimalistic, because the basic shell offers so many opportunities to customize and extend the user interface. If the only thing Blackbox offered over Windows was a more spartan approach it wouldn't be very popular. Blackbox's advantage over Windows is manifested by its superior ability to control almost every aspect of the user interface using plugins, ancillary programs, and scripting."

Alright. this is Talk material. BB4Win/xoblite/BBLean are spartan and minimalistic, the fact that you can change that through plugins, does not affect the fact that the core itself is minimalistic/spartan. Also, performance issues should only be discussed if they can be backed up by some kind of show of information. Things based on opinion are not appropriate. The last sentance is still opinionated, but closer to something usable, saying merely "Blackbox's abilities are manifested.." would be more appropriate. --Tres`ni 11:37, 27 March 2006 (PST)

[edit] Ouch!

Well, I was really trying to write in an unbiased manner. I guess it doesn't look that way to you all. I didn't put anything about xoblite--I was hoping it would be rounded out. I expected to see my comments revised with respect to bbLean vs. xoblite. I really wasn't trying to lavish praise on bbLean. As far as the level of detail, I was concerned about that. I figured I would find out about it fast. I didn't re-organize the page. I think the two main active shells should be described, somehow, on the entry page. Plus, a few lines on BB4Win (what it's like, broadly) and Bluebox (likewise) would pique my interest. I don't really have the motivation to install those shells, so someone who knows might say a few lines. It doesn't seem out of place to have a title page that is roughly equal to what you could fit on an 8 by 11 sheet of paper. I'll defer to Tresni's judgement on what is an appropriate length for the opener.

As far as the fewer resources comment in the opening, I could be off-base. I was trying to make the point that people choose BB not cause of a smaller memory footprint (which often isn't true anyway) but because they want better control/better usability than that offered by Windows. I'm trying to answer the question: Why should I bother with blackbox if I already have Windows? It occurs to me that I may not have the same perception of the audience as you. I sincerely don't want to talk down to them. That would bother me more than a minor factual error or a mildly incorrect value judgement. If I lose the audience, there is no hope.

I was afraid that someone would think I was giving xob the shaft, I wasn't trying to. I thought someone else would step in and balance it out. My favorable comments towards bbLean were based on my experience and what people say about xob on the forum. It often goes something like: "you know I really like the way xob looks, but I need..." I believe bbLean's menu scripting *is* richer. If it's untrue, tell me so. Sure there's a degree of bias, but when I say 'today the sky is blue' I don't give you the wavelength of the light emitted--we use a commonly accepted term and our knowledge of other types of skies. I mentioned the part about xob's menus being prettier. I didn't want to say pretty so I said visually appealing. They *are* prettier. Keep in mind that one who is reading this is probably on the track to investigating both shells. He can decide if that's true for him. But he has an idea of what to look for and perhaps what to expect.

If experienced users read this with an eye towards nitpicking or defending their favorite shell they will *always* find something to complain about. Furthermore, if the wiki is too dry no one will read it. It's supposed to be a wiki, not a CVS system.

You can easily see who revised the section--it's not necessary to apologize to an anonymous entity. I'm sorry if it makes you want to puke. I attempted to match the writing tone you might find in a magazine or on Wikipedia. It sounds like I didn't succeed. I know I'm taking a defensive tone and I apoligize for that. ...If you mash down too hard on your volunteers you'll have none and your wiki will "never get out of committee" --Quidmeister 2:08, 28 March 2006 (CST)

I must apologize for my comments. I'm really sorry, they were way too reactionary. I don't think I should post in the mornings, I'm just way too cranky. Quidmeister, you've been really helpful in this documentation effort and I was way out of line. I really could have handled the entire thing better. --Malnilion 16:51, 29 March 2006 (PST)
For the record, opinion-based text, even if it represents the majority opinion (and actually your opinion about the "rich"-ness and "prettiness" of bbLean and xoblite I almost completely agree with), doesn't really belong on the wiki. Anyway, I think things are looking pretty good now and I'm sorry for causing more of a scene than there needed to be and for expressing my opinion in the offensive manner I did. --Malnilion 16:03, 30 March 2006 (PST)
A dry wiki is bad, we all can agree on that, but we've got a short space to put a lot of information on the info. So maybe we need a comparison page that is linked directly from the main page, but right now, adding a bunch of feature information to the main page is, I feel, counter productive. To much information and the user stops reading as they don't care (yet.) So we give them the basics and the ability to get more info. Except for certain parts of the above quoted info, the information you contributed is usable and good, just out of place, hence why I moved it ;) Please, keep contributing, I don't want to stop anyone from doing that. --Tres`ni 21:33, 30 March 2006 (PST)
M, no apology needed. My entry was (unintentionally) biased and you called it. I was bracing myself for a severe edit, and that's exactly what I got, ha! Both your's and tres' comments made for a better wiki. Too long is probably worse than too dry. I wanted to say more about xob and less about bblean, but I probably would have done xob more injustice than I already did. I write too much, cause it's easier than manly coding. : } --Quidmeister <<--- click here 2:06, 31 March 2006 (CST)

[edit] BB4Win Wiki site's favicon.ico

Hey all. I just got an idea, and so I am just curious what would you guys say. Do you also think that it would be quite nice if the BB4Win Wiki site would use a "favicon" icon; possibly the icon extracted from the blackbox.exe file ??

Or this was maybe even already discussed (well, there is a "Wiki Logo" comment above, but I assume it's not abput the same thing, right) ??

regards Satyr-wayfarer-Talk/Discuss | [1], on April 5, 2006

Retrieved from "http://wiki.bb4win.org/wiki/Talk:Main_Page"
Personal tools