On 10/21/06, Steffen < stffn@dibidut.dk> wrote:

On 21/10/2006, at 22.28, Adrian wrote:

> this is a mere echo mail: i want to check how alive this list is.

check.

> are there people willing to do a plone-skin? (look at plone.net to see
> what is possible) because changing from plone to something else is not
> an option i think. to much work. to much lose.

i think grafical changes are a good start. But i also think that
structural changes and silk documentation are important to get the
best out of it.

I am, when i get some time, going to make a proposal. But there have,
in my opinion already been made good suggestions. fx:

Kyle wrote:
> I really do enjoy the layout on the Processing site (http://
> processing.org/), since it is very clean and has lots of pictures
> and a big fat examples section on the front page.  If we are trying
> to market Pd to new users, this is THE most important thing (as
> previously asserted).
>
> I also enjoy their utilization of subdomains.  We could do this
> with things like http://gem.puredata.org, http://
> gridflow.puredata.org , http://pidip.puredata.org , etc.
>
> Also, it would be best if the forum was attached to the main
> website by at least a prominent link/redirect, if not actually in
> server space.  But we definitely need more pictures:  unless you're
> trying to show off by running lynx, the internet is not a purely
> textual medium.  Besides, the people who actually DO patch Pd
> without a GUI probably aren't so interested in visiting a more
> marketing-oriented site anyway.  Maybe we could do http://
> nogui.puredata.org?

Pete wote:
> * What it is, in simple terminology
> * What people are doing with it
> * How to install it - where to find different versions, and a sub-
> page with 'common problems' that people have when installing
> * Some simple tutorials with patches (the first howto on the
> current page is Miller's book!)

_______________________________________________
pdweb mailing list
pdweb@iem.at
http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pdweb