Comments on Download Pages

11^th July 2005

These are comments based on trying out the prototype download pages to download Linux binaries. I have grouped the comments page-by-page, and have made mock-ups for each to illustrate some of the changes that I think could be made to improve the presentation of the options and the information. There are a few comments on Windows, although I haven't tried this comprehensively, and there are some general comments at the end.

Page 1: System Selection

1. Comments on the page appearance:
   • Need to highlight the list of steps at the top of the page e.g. by embedding in a table with a different background colour to the rest of the page (true for all the pages).
   • The title in the main body of the page should be the same as that in the list of steps in the banner (true for all the pages).
   • There is too much text at the top of the page.
   • Remove the "=>" symbols from the Linux/OSF1 sections.
2. Misleading instructions: the page tells me that it's detected that I'm using Linux, and says that I only need to choose an option myself if I don't want to download files for Linux. I read this to mean that I'm not obliged to select anything, and that if I click "continue" then I will automatically get Linux binaries. However what actually happens is that I get told to go back and choose something after all, which is irritating.
3. OSF1 Binaries: I think we should drop OSF1 V4.0 as a supported platform for binaries, as a shrinking subset of the suite actually builds/runs on it.
4. Linux platforms: I don't understand what the page is telling me here, specifically:
   • The text suggests that I should select the target system, however what if I don't have Red Hat or Fedora but Mandrake or SuSE? It appears that I can't download anything for these platforms.
   • I don't understand what the trailing "x86" means here
5. Accessing more information about the options: I would suggest putting in hyperlinks to "help" or "more info" for each of the options. This enables you to make detailed information available regarding the options, without cluttering up the page.
6. Others option: I would suggest changing this text to "Available source code only", and then separating this from the other platforms with text reading "If your platform is not one of those listed above then you can download the available source code (note that this may not be available for all packages)".

I have tried to illustrate some of these suggestions in a mock-up of the page:

• download_1.html

Page 2: Package Selection

I reached this page by selecting "Red Hat 8.9" and clicking "continue"

1. Layout: this page looks very busy - the presentation could be less confusing and some of the text seems extraneous.
   • Separate the "download everything option" from the rest more clearly, i.e. have something like:

     If you want to download everything that is available then select this option:
            [x]  All CCP4 and external packages
     Otherwise select specific packages from the list below:
            [logo]  CCP4 [x] ...
                         [x] ...
             

   • The text for each selectable option is very dense and has a lot of repetition - for example the text "CCP4 Crystallographic program suite" appears twice, whereas something like:

     [logo] CCP4 crystallographic...suite [x] Executables    93.0 MB
                                          [x] Source code    56.0 MB
             

     would be cleaner.
   • There are some inconsistencies in capitalisation of "source code" and "Executables".
2. Additional info:
   • It would be useful to have a link to some help that explains the difference between the executables and the source code downloads.
   • Does the option "All CCP4 and external packages" download the executables and the source code? (Isn't it likely that an average user would want either all source code or all executables, but most likely not both together?)
   • It would be useful to link to more information about each of the packages (e.g. contents, function, installation...?)
3. COOT: check with Paul Emsley, I think that the text "COOT" is sufficient (i.e. the extended text "Crystallographic Object ..." is not required).

I have tried to illustrate some of these suggestions in a mock-up of the page:

• download_2.html

Page 3: Dependency Check

I reached this page by selecting executables for CCP4, Phaser/CCTBX, CCP4MG, CHOOCH (source) and COOT - then clicking "continue" (I didn't select any of the external packages)

1. I think that the external packages should be unchecked by default - I already had the option of including them and didn't, so by presenting them to me the page is suggesting that it knows better than I do (see "About Face" chapt 14 for why this is a bad idea in interfaces). If you make this change then the text obviously needs to change to "Check this if you don't have at least version XXX of package YYY". However ...
2. ... I would not present the options to add the packages here - I would simply warn the user that they may need the additional packages (giving the reasons) and then present an option to return to the previous step to modify their selection appropriately. This would give a flow like:

       Platform selection
               |
               V
       Package Selection <----+
               |              |
               V              |
       Selection Review ------+
               |
               V
          Agreements
               |
               V
           Download
      

   (See also the comments below on page 4 "Agreements".)

I have tried to illustrate some of these suggestions in a mock-up of the page:

• download_3.html

Page 4: Agreements

I reached this page by unchecking the additional packages and then clicking "continue".

1. Selection review: I think you should get this information off this page. I feel like I'm getting the same information as on the previous page i.e. once again I'm getting a list of the packages that I've selected. This would be sensible if I had modified my selection by including the additional packages, but in this case I didn't.
   My feeling is that on the previous page (number 3) the user should be offered the opportunity to go back and change their selection - not only may they wish to add the dependencies, but also they may have decided that they made a mistake somewhere else in their selection after reviewing it.
   This page then should be purely for the purposes of reminding the user about the licensing prior to download.
2. Button text: this text doesn't make sense in the context of the preceeding text - what is the user being asked to agree with? e.g. the statement that all users must hold a valid licence? So some change is needed here.
3. Don't agree: if I select this option then I get dumped back at the main page. Instead it should take me to a page acknowledging that I didn't agree to the licence.

I have tried to illustrate some of these suggestions in a mock-up of the page:

• download_4.html

Page 5: Download

I reached this page by clicking "agree" - although actually this is more like two pages - the first that tells the user that something is happening, and the second which gives the link to the final file.

Comments on the first part:

1. You need to give the user an indication of how long "a little while" actually is, i.e. for me it appeared to be of the order of 1-2 minutes for 250 MB download.
2. Is it possible to embed some animated gif e.g. a ticking clock? This reassures the user by giving them a visual indicator that they should be waiting.
3. The diagnostic output is not necessary (e.g. "packing CCP4 packages"). Most users don't care about or understand the mechanics for producing the packages. Also it's better to write a complete HTML file before serving it to the client - if you send malformed (incomplete) HTML then you are making the assumption that their browser can display this correctly. (This may be true but you shouldn't rely on it.)

I have tried to illustrate some of these suggestions in a mock-up of the page:

• download_5.html

Comments on the second part:

1. There should be a link to the installation instructions - at the moment I'm left with the puzzle of how to unpack and install my selection.
2. The page should tell me the name of the file I'm going to download.

I have tried to illustrate some of these suggestions in a mock-up of the page:

• download_6.html

Download for Windows

The previous feedback is for Linux. I also briefly looked at downloading for Windows.

1. Procedure: This follows a different path to the other systems - namely, it jumps directly to the download step. After\ following the Linux path this confounded my expectations (when do I select the packages? when do I agree to the licence? etc).
   There needs to be some explanation on the page about what will happen now. I would also suggest adding in the same banner as in the other pages, jumping directly to the "download" indicator.
2. Download file name: This should be called something more descriptive than "setup.exe".

General Comments

1. There a number of typos and unclear instructions - I think that there needs to be a review of this once the pages are nearer to their final form.
2. Some of the HTML generated by the scripting seems to be malformed, e.g. in the table generated for the first page there are a number of spurious <td> tags, and in many places the equivalent closing tags are missing e.g. missing </td>
3. Does the procedure need a "page zero" to outline to the user how the process works? (Probably not, but should be considered.)
4. Should consider including the version numbers of the packages being offered for download on page 2.