On Wed, Sep 28, 2016 at 4:06 PM, Daniel Roe <daniel.r.roe.gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
+1
>
> -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
>
--
Jason M. Swails
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Wed Sep 28 2016 - 14:00:02 PDT
