Re: [boost] [website] Proposal for new page - Libraries By Type

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-17 13:35:19

"Andy Little" <andy_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "David Abrahams" wrote
>> "Andy Little"  writes:
>>
>>> My problem is that it just isnt Generic enough, but just someone
>>> elses grouping (nor is the current grouping any better) . Whats
>>> needed is some sort of generic grouping mechanism with a choice of
>>> grouping algorithms and /or keywords. That would be more in the
>>> spirit of boost. (The nearest thing currently is the Google box. )
>>> Of course whether the technology a) exists b) is acceptable on the
>>> website.... is another matter.
>>
>> I think the inclination to use complex and unspecified (non-existent?)
>> technology to attack the library browsability problem is really
>> amusing.
>
> I'm glad that I at least lightened your day ;-)
>
>> In my opinion, it's not at all in the spirit of Boost.
>
> I was thinking about generic programming when I wrote that FWIW.
>
>> Operationally, many of the things we do are purposefully simple to
>> avoid imposing lots of overhead on our volunteer structure.  If *I*
>> were a newbie asked to choose among grouping algorithms I would
>> probably go back and read the list from beginning to end.  The human
>> ability to categorize blows what machines can do out of the water any
>> day of the week, and I think exactly what Beth is doing -- with a
>> little input from other participants -- is likely to produce far
>> superior results.
>
> FWIW Here are some algorithmic categories I thought of. Some you may
> recognise...
>
> Sort by Most popular
> Sort by least popular

Fun, but seldom useful.

> Sort by Most recent

That's why we have news on the front page.

> Sort by Oldest

seldom useful..

> Choose Header only no linking reqd

Useful, though could be handled with an icon.

> Choose Header only or Autolink

I don't know what that means.

> Choose those that need building

Useful.

> Choose only those with standardisation proposals
> Choose only those with equivalents in TR1.

Now you're talking.

> Alphabetical A-Z.

We have that.

> Alphabetical Z-A.

Not useful.

> Rated excellent/good/medium/poor...

I'm not sure we want that.

>> Just my 2c; if you feel like coding it up, we can always try it for
>> comparison.
>
> Basically a drop down box, which provides the above algorithms and similar that
> can be added as demanded/coded.
> On selecting one algorithm  bring up a list of the relevant libraries.
> Ideally float mouse over a particular query result gives a popup with a bit more
> detailed info.
> Not sure whether Javascript is acceptable though? ( hmm if Javascript can do
> it.. havent used it for a long time )
>
> (hmm......I wonder if  he's still laughing ) .......   ;-)

No, this is deadly serious: if you feel like coding it up, we can
always try it for comparison :).  Last I checked, JavaScript is
acceptable if not having JavaScript doesn't make the information
inaccessible.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com