I think that now it is automatic to go and download the latest version
of 3.5.x and when you go to the "choice" of versions, the current setup
goes to that version as the "recommended version". That was that nearly
as soon as the 3.5.x line was released.
Then we got a "oops" where the page started both the latest version and
its last RC version at the same time with no indication which button
goes with which until you start the download processes. Hopefully it
will be fixed soon.
But what I really would like to see is a choice FIRST.
Click here for the:
3.4.6 - latest/last of the previous version/line
3.5.4 - current newest version/line
3.5.5 beta - current developer's beta testing version download
We need to give people an easy way to give users a choice, instead of
some small text near large buttons.
We need to help the users with the choice with proper wording. Whatever
the wording will be, it needs to state things like:
this version is stable and works well for . . .
this version has newer and more features that are in various stages of
development, and works well for . . .
Yes, each business and personal user need to determine what version will
work best for them, but you really need to give them a good way to know
what is right for them. The Features page has a good list of new
features, but are all those features currently working properly with,
say 3.5.4, or not working completely right now? Some of the features,
by looking at the bug page[s], looks line are not working properly with
all modules or options in a certain module. If the feature is listed in
the feature page, I hope that they will not be there if knowing that it
is not working properly. That does not help with the users and the rep.
of TDF/LO, if you advertise a feature and right now it does not
completely work properly.
As this is the marketing page, hopefully those really involved in
marketing LO, to personal, business, and government users, will be very
concerned with LO's rep. and how it is displayed to the users on the web
I really think that as Apache OO gets farther along, businesses and
governments may turn to Apache OO instead of LO for their open source
office package, IF TDF/LO does not get better at gearing its web site
and such to the needs of these users. LO really went a long way to get
beyond what Oracle did, but now with OO being developed again under
Apache's system, it will take more than just "business as usual".
On 06/03/2012 11:08 AM, Tom Davies wrote:
No, when the 3..0 was released the web-page suddenly changed to only show 1 download. That download being the 3.5.0 which was shown in green and wording around it claimed it was the "stable release". No mention of it being the latest and most exciting packed with tons of new features. No warnings about it possibly having regressions and possibly being more buggy than normal releases. Just a claim that it was recommended for corporate users.
--- On Sun, 3/6/12, Cor Nouws<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
For sure it cannot happen that the 3.6.0 will be the default download without clear info about the
various choices and such.
IIRC that wasn't the situation with the 3.5.0 too?
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to email@example.com
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/marketing/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
- Re: [libreoffice-marketing] Fw: Re: [libreoffice-users] Re: Is 3.5.4 ready for business users? (continued)
Impressum (Legal Info)
: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images
on this website are licensed under the
Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is
licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2
"LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are
registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are
in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective
logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use
thereof is explained in our trademark policy