Hi Peter,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 14, 2011 at 9:59 AM, Peter von Kaehne <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:refdoc@gmx.net">refdoc@gmx.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On 13/02/11 00:56, Peter von Kaehne wrote:<br>
> I am showing 10 items on the page.<br>
<br>
</div>Changed now to three classes of news items (core, modules and frontends)<br>
each 5 items.<br>
<br>
These will age with different speed, but not anymore interfere with each<br>
other. And each frontend will at any time only have one item up front,<br>
so none can drown out the others.<br></blockquote><div><br>I'm not sure if there is any good way to improve this, but when I look at that page it is not clear to me what those three columns mean. The next thing I see (looking first at the left hand column) is that the most recent news item is from 2009. This suggests to me that the project may be stale or out of date. I know when I see news feeds like that I sometimes just kill the tab without looking further. As we know, there is newer news there, but I am just afraid that those coming to the site will not recognise the organising principles immediately (if at all). A simple reverse chronological news feed might not be the universal best solution, but it is at least something casual visitors are likely to understand.<br>
<br>In the same vein, newer news might be a good thing. I'm sure this is largely the fault of frontend developers (like me) not adding news items, but I'm sure BibleTime 2.5, PocketSword 1.0, BPBible 0.4.3, and Xiphos 3.0 are not the latest versions available, and the 2009 date on the news items makes that rather clear.<br>
<br>Jon<br></div></div>