Download page needs a tidy up

[Manu]

On 22 August 2013 13:18, Brad Anderson <eco at gnuk.net> wrote:

> On Thursday, 22 August 2013 at 03:07:39 UTC, Manu wrote:
>
>> So I'm trying to find windows binaries for GDC and LDC...
>>
>> First place I look is dlang.org/download. Appears to be for DMD... keep
>> looking.
>>
>> I look at the GDC/LDC wiki pages. No links to binaries anywhere.
>> GDC and LDC home pages... no links to binaries.
>> Github doesn't host binaries anymore...
>>
>> Where are they?
>>
>> Turns out there are links to the GDC binaries (hosted on bitbucket) on
>> dlang.org/download.
>> ...I didn't previously notice they were there, never scrolled down far
>> enough. The impression you get from the top of the page is that
>> dlang.orgis just DMD related, and I quickly dismissed it previously
>>
>>  _<
>>>
>>
>> But there's still no LDC binary there... where is it?
>>
>> This needs to be fixed. You can argue I'm retarded and ignorant, but as an
>> end user, it should take me no more than 5 seconds to find the download
>> button.
>>
>> I suggest, on the front page of dlang.org, there should be a MASSIVE
>> button: "DOWNLOAD D COMPILERS", and the download page should be tweaked to
>> be more obviously compiler agnostic.
>>
>> D1 and DMC consume an unreasonable amount of realestate, hiding GDC/LDC
>> (surely basically nobody is looking for those?), perhaps they should be
>> reduced to small test links with the other links down the bottom of the
>> page?
>> This will allow room to present GDC and LDC without scrolling.
>>
>> And why is there no LDC binary?
>>
>
> I tried to fix some of these problems here[1].  Maybe someone can take
> what I did and fix it up enough to be used.
>
> 1. https://github.com/D-**Programming-Language/dlang.**org/pull/304<https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/304>
>

Definitely an improvement!
Although if I were to be critical, I'd say when scrolling the page, I find
the almost random layout of the bright red buttons scattered all over the
place to be rather overwhelming.

I was also briefly confused by the 32bit/64bit scattered everywhere. My
initial assumption was that it specified the toolchain's target
architecture :/
But since it's the compiler's host arch, I'd say that for Windows where
32bit binaries will run on any version of windows and no 64bit binary is
offered, and OSX which has only ever been 64bit, there's no need to write
it for those platforms. It's just confusing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20130822/3ef021b6/attachment.html>