Hi,
It might be worthwhile to first create a separate page that shows your
idea instead of modifying the existing page. This way you could get
some feedback first.
-Dan
On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 1:43 PM, David Cerutti <dscerutti.gmail.com> wrote:
> The intention is to make the table of contents more detailed--every
> tutorial will get a link on the front page, and each section will open in a
> new tab or window depending on user settings. The current setup doesn't
> really give a good idea of what is there with the seven or eight topical
> headings. Much easier to navigate short pages that contain the topic you
> need rather than having to scroll past lots of other tutorials. I made the
> reformatting last night, just need to check the appearance before I
> commit. I think it'll make things easier to see and also give new
> tutorials better visibility.
> On Sep 28, 2016 8:52 AM, "David A Case" <david.case.rutgers.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Sep 27, 2016, Dave Cerutti wrote:
>> >
>> > I propose to make some changes to the ordering and grouping of the
>> > tutorials, but none will be left out. The big change will be to have
>> five
>> > or six sub-pages that users can open in order to access the various
>> > tutorials. The index page will retain most of its look and feel, but the
>> > ToC will be expanded to have not just links to each sub-page but also a
>> > listing with #links for each tutorial.
>>
>> In my opinion, this is not really an improvement. It makes it harder to
>> browse through all the tutorials--the user has you visit a bunch of pages
>> to get an idea of what tutorials are available. The existing table of
>> contents at the top of the tutorials page (which could be improved) allows
>> users to jump to a particular area of interest, which still allowing the
>> "browsing" feature.
>>
>> >
>> > I've also made some minor alterations to the tutorial abstracts. I'm
>> > inclined to do away with calling tutorials "Advanced" because the notion
>> of
>> > advanced concepts in Amber has evolved somewhat over the years, but the
>> > numbering system will stay in place anticipating that reflector
>> > conversations cannot be retroactively changed. I have edited the page
>> > source to stop warning people if things are for "Amber 9 or later" but
>> more
>> > recent additions retain those warnings.
>>
>> Above stuff sounds fine...thanks....dac
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> AMBER-Developers mailing list
>> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
>> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
--
-------------------------
Daniel R. Roe
Laboratory of Computational Biology
National Institutes of Health, NHLBI
5635 Fishers Ln, Rm T900
Rockville MD, 20852
https://www.lobos.nih.gov/lcb
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Sep 28 2016 - 13:30:02 PDT
