Difference between revisions of "User talk:PeterSampson/Sand-Box"

From Audacity Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(This page is left intentionally blank.)
(Gale's feedback on Talk page)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
__NOTOC__
 
__NOTOC__
=This page is left intentionally blank.=
+
==Gale wrote by email 14Dec16==
 +
On the whole I think there may be a case for moving most of those
 +
links to Wiki and doing away with that Links page.
 +
 
 +
There are no reciprocal link agreements that I am aware of for that
 +
Links page, so the case is different to the distributors page where
 +
there were "agreements", in some sense.
 +
 
 +
The rationale for the Links page was as James stated, I believe,
 +
but I think we could constrain the links by perceived usefulness.
 +
 
 +
As one example, I think it good that some users might see the link for
 +
Avidemux and so remux their Audacity-edited audio without damaging
 +
the video, rather than lossily re-encoding their video in Movie Maker or
 +
whatever.  OTOH I see little purpose linking (solely) to Ardour as an
 +
example of a DAW/audio editor. They have set their stall against
 +
supporting Windows, and only a vanishingly small proportion of our users
 +
could manage their learning curve, I suspect.
 +
 
 +
If the links are likely to be more findable on Wiki, on "Beyond Audacity"
 +
pages about specific tasks or about other apps, then I think it's OK to move
 +
them there. But is that supposition of more findable on Wiki likely to be
 +
true? We may have to put some work into making it so.
 +
 
 +
Note that on WIki (and in the Manual) we do recommend commercial or
 +
closed source applications (which I think is OK if they are known excellent
 +
and if we recommend more than one). Where links are not constrained to
 +
open source only, we could mention other useful apps like Foobar 2000.
 +
 
 +
It is of course our decision not to put current Audacity up on SourceForge.
 +
SF is still a useful open source repository, but I don't think we want the
 +
maintenance of constantly checking up on whether they have gone back to
 +
aggressive or deceptive advertising, so better to remove those SF links.

Revision as of 10:16, 15 December 2016

Gale wrote by email 14Dec16

On the whole I think there may be a case for moving most of those links to Wiki and doing away with that Links page.

There are no reciprocal link agreements that I am aware of for that Links page, so the case is different to the distributors page where there were "agreements", in some sense.

The rationale for the Links page was as James stated, I believe, but I think we could constrain the links by perceived usefulness.

As one example, I think it good that some users might see the link for Avidemux and so remux their Audacity-edited audio without damaging the video, rather than lossily re-encoding their video in Movie Maker or whatever. OTOH I see little purpose linking (solely) to Ardour as an example of a DAW/audio editor. They have set their stall against supporting Windows, and only a vanishingly small proportion of our users could manage their learning curve, I suspect.

If the links are likely to be more findable on Wiki, on "Beyond Audacity" pages about specific tasks or about other apps, then I think it's OK to move them there. But is that supposition of more findable on Wiki likely to be true? We may have to put some work into making it so.

Note that on WIki (and in the Manual) we do recommend commercial or closed source applications (which I think is OK if they are known excellent and if we recommend more than one). Where links are not constrained to open source only, we could mention other useful apps like Foobar 2000.

It is of course our decision not to put current Audacity up on SourceForge. SF is still a useful open source repository, but I don't think we want the maintenance of constantly checking up on whether they have gone back to aggressive or deceptive advertising, so better to remove those SF links.