sound & midi applications page, was Re: [Consortium] linuxaudio.org

[Paul Winkler]

On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 11:59:11PM +0100, Andrea Glorioso wrote:
> Paul Winkler <pw_lists at slinkp.com> writes:
> 
> > On Wed, Jan 28, 2004 at 03:25:27PM -0600, Jack O'Quin wrote:
> >> Seems like subdomains would be more flexible.  People could keep their
> >> web sites on SF or wherever they are, yet still move if necessary.
> >
> > Right. This also means each site could be maintained with 
> > your choice of tools. plain html, php, zope, java, whatever.
> >
> > I've been promising to do a dynamic, user-maintainable version
> > of Dave's app listing for oh, a couple years now...
> 
> What were/are the exact requirements of such an application?

We discussed some requirements a long time ago on LAD and/or LAU,
I forget. I put up a quick mockup on my website and have done nothing
since then.

(I was going to paste link here, but in a stunning display of
synchronicity, my site is down for the first time since
moving to new server...)

Basically it's a basic content management system. I've done enough of that
that i could have a nice prototype up in a weekend using 
zope/cmf/plone/archetypes.  I just haven't taken the time,
and I do it all day for work, so my motivation tends to be low ;-)
Also my visual design is awful, so help with css and layout would
be appreciated.

The site would have both registered and anonymous users.
Usage policy can be discussed, but I think a reasonable starting point
would be something like:

 registered users can:
   - post entries for new software
   - post updates on software entries
   - post reviews of software
   - post links
   - post short comments on other items

 anonymous users can:
   - post short comments on other items
   - register

We could expand the site from there, maybe make it a more
full-featured portal if users like it.  Have articles,
news items, member profile pages, maybe (blecch) forums :=)

On LAD we also discussed the possibility of having a ratings system 
for software, but the consensus was that quantitative ratings are 
more trouble than they are worth, especially given how quickly 
software quality can change.
But written user reviews generally met with approval.

-- 

Paul Winkler
http://www.slinkp.com
Look! Up in the sky! It's BLONDE BOONDAWGAL!
(random hero from isometric.spaceninja.com)