Re: TIB: Re: RE: Proposal: To weed out useless and no good TI-BASIC prog


[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: TIB: Re: RE: Proposal: To weed out useless and no good TI-BASIC programs o




The Garth Johnson wrote:

> ---Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us> wrote:
> >
> >
> > The Garth Johnson wrote:
> >
> > > ---Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > The Garth Johnson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ---Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@isd.ingham.k12.mi.us> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TGaArdvark@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > How about having several categories to rate the programs
> by?
> > > > > have a
> > > > > > > > compactness of the programming (if the author did
> everything
> > > > > using the
> > > > > > > > least amount of code possible), the usefulness of a
> program
> > > > > (could be
> > > > > > > > how fun a game is), and some other category.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Instead of having a 4/5 star system, use a 3 star.  It
> would
> > > be a
> > > > > > > > yes/no/sorta system if the author did whatever the
> criteria
> > > are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You can only fit so much in 640 pixels.  And that just means
> > > more
> > > > > > > work.  I agree that this would be the best system if it were
> > > not so
> > > > > > > much more work than the others.  3 stars is a smart idea.
> Maybe
> > > > > > > some other picture might be better though so people will
> expect
> > > > > > > 3 instead of 4 or 5.  Maybe thumbs up or something... Dunno.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's true, we are getting a little cramped for space after
> we
> > > > > added the
> > > > > > date column.  But I think we still have room, since the
> filename
> > > and
> > > > > size
> > > > > > columns seem to be very far apart.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > --
> > > > > > Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@ticalc.org>
> > > > > >    File Archives, HTML, and Support
> > > > > >    the ticalc.org project - http://www.ticalc.org/
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > as long as you are changing the archives, how about grouping
> files
> > > > > according to type?  Why not put those 10 minesweepers right
> next to
> > > > > one another so that they can be compared.  I know that
> alphabetical
> > > > > order is the best way to have it, but if things are grouped in
> > > > > categories it is easier.
> > > >
> > > > Are you proposing we do /83/games/arcade/ and /83/games/strategy/
> > > etc etc?
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@ticalc.org>
> > > >    File Archives, HTML, and Support
> > > >    the ticalc.org project - http://www.ticalc.org/
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > that would be nice, but you would have to load each page.  That
> takes
> > > too long.  What I mean is like
> > > 83/games directory
> > > Arcade games
> > > a
> > > b
> > > c
> > >
> > > Strategy
> > > X
> > > y
> > > Z
> > >
> > > Misc
> > > 1
> > > 2
> > > 3
> >
> > That's not a traditional directory listing. :)  We would need some
> fancy
> > cheating to get the page to look like that.
> >
> > --
> > Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@ticalc.org>
> >    File Archives, HTML, and Support
> >    the ticalc.org project - http://www.ticalc.org/
> >
> >
> >
>
> how about an icon or something to identify the game type?

That's an idea.  Although they can't be too big because they must fit on our
filearchive pages, but they have to be large enough so you can tell what it
is.  Any good icon artists out there?

--
Bryan Rabeler <brabeler@ticalc.org>
   File Archives, HTML, and Support
   the ticalc.org project - http://www.ticalc.org/



References: