Ping Susan - PW query

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alan
  • Start date Start date
A

Alan

Hi Susan

Just browsing away and noticed what might be described as an anomoly in
System Utilities -> Resource Tool
The two programs here are really quite different things. Quick Resource
gives information on O/S resources (System, User, and GDI) while
Resource Hacker is a tool for extracting resources (icons, sounds etc.)
from files. I think the former does belong in System Utilities, but the
latter doesn't - but where to put it is just as big a question. Maybe
with icon tools or editors?

2¢
 
Alan said:
Hi Susan

Just browsing away and noticed what might be described as an anomoly in
System Utilities -> Resource Tool
The two programs here are really quite different things. Quick Resource
gives information on O/S resources (System, User, and GDI) while
Resource Hacker is a tool for extracting resources (icons, sounds etc.)
from files. I think the former does belong in System Utilities, but the
latter doesn't - but where to put it is just as big a question. Maybe
with icon tools or editors?

2¢
Click to expand...

IMO System Utilities is the best page for Resource Hacker, but it
probably should have a different subcategory -> Resource extractor?

Probably time to start discussing category revisions in general. You
certainly picked a nice example to start with. :)

I rather *not* make changes in this year's index (KISS). The proposed
2004 index is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004CategoryIndex.htm

*I* would like to change the Business page to Business-Home and move
Astronomy and Bible Program from Desktop to Business-Home.

I also think that shell browsers should be on the Internet page rather
than the Shell Utilities page.

That's just for openers . . . :)

Suggestions for revisions and new categories are welcome. You don't have
to have a program in mind to propose a category (although an example may
be helpful). To view this year's programs in each category - sort the
2003 Alphabetical page - or go to the 2004 nominations page:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004nominationsPL.php

I will revise the 2004 nominations page as needed so that carryover
nominations (the current PL) are shown in their new/revised categories
when we start the nomination process.

Susan
 
IMO System Utilities is the best page for Resource Hacker, but it
probably should have a different subcategory -> Resource
extractor?
Click to expand...

To me, it is a File Utility, not a System Utility. But it may also
need a reference from the Graphics section somewhere.
 
»Q« said:
To me, it is a File Utility, not a System Utility. But it may also
need a reference from the Graphics section somewhere.
Click to expand...

It's does seem related to Archive tools - so File Utilities *might* be
the best home for it. The next question is whether people who want such
a tool will find it. System Utilities does have many of the *geeky*
programs - a *category* that I think includes Resource Hacker . . .

Resource Hacker extracts sound files (Multimedia) as well as graphics -
that's 2 cross-references.

I think we need a separate page (or group of pages) for cross-references
- pages that list topics and name the PL programs that are relevant.
This would be especially helpful for programs with *hidden talents* -
OpenOffice.org (PDF, graphics, etc. etc. etc.) and IrfanView
(screensaver, file renamer) - the programs with popup killers, programs
that have alarms, organizer programs and so forth . . .

Susan
 
Susan said:
IMO System Utilities is the best page for Resource Hacker, but it
probably should have a different subcategory -> Resource extractor?
Click to expand...

Trouble is that "lesser" sites than the PW list are able to get away
with it by simply dropping it into "Utilities". But we can't let them
win that easily. ;-)
 
Susan said:
It's does seem related to Archive tools - so File Utilities *might* be
the best home for it. The next question is whether people who want such
a tool will find it. System Utilities does have many of the *geeky*
programs - a *category* that I think includes Resource Hacker . . .

Resource Hacker extracts sound files (Multimedia) as well as graphics -
that's 2 cross-references.

I think we need a separate page (or group of pages) for cross-references
- pages that list topics and name the PL programs that are relevant.
This would be especially helpful for programs with *hidden talents* -
OpenOffice.org (PDF, graphics, etc. etc. etc.) and IrfanView
(screensaver, file renamer) - the programs with popup killers, programs
that have alarms, organizer programs and so forth . . .
Click to expand...

Following up on my post . . .

I decided to create a trial page for cross-referencing the PL:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/PL2004TopicList.php#1

Now would be a good time to suggest topics for cross-referencing and the
current PL programs that should be listed for the topic.

When we have some useful information I'll make a page for this year's
Pricelessware listings.

Susan
 
Alan said:
Susan Bugher wrote:

Trouble is that "lesser" sites than the PW list are able to get away
with it by simply dropping it into "Utilities". But we can't let them
win that easily. ;-)
Click to expand...

:)

What do you think of Q's suggestion of File Utilities as a home for
Resource Hacker?

Susan
 
A.A. Fussy said:
Can I nominate Babya System-http://babyasystem.portal.dk3.com
Click to expand...

It's a bit early. The schedule is here:

http://www.pricelessware.org/2004/2004proceduresPL.htm

If Babya System will need a new subcategory now *is* the time to suggest
the subcategory.

What you *can* do now is send a post to the group about Babya System -
telling people about it and why you think it a good candidate for
Pricelessware. You could label the post Pricelessware Candidate: Babya
System. IMO it's helpful to tell people about these programs before
nominations start - gives them more chance to try them.

JMO :)

Susan
 
Susan said:
:)

What do you think of Q's suggestion of File Utilities as a home for
Resource Hacker?
Click to expand...

Q's suggestion: "To me, it is a File Utility, not a System Utility. But
it may also need a reference from the Graphics section somewhere." I
tend to think the converse - belongs in the Graphics section, but maybe
needs to be referenced as a file utility. My classification is based on
what it produces, which is mainly graphics & media items. This is what
the user is "after" when seeking a program like this - where can I get
icons from? how do I get the sound XYZ makes? can I get the images used
in the ABC interface?...
 
Alan said:
Q's suggestion: "To me, it is a File Utility, not a System Utility. But
it may also need a reference from the Graphics section somewhere." I
tend to think the converse - belongs in the Graphics section, but maybe
needs to be referenced as a file utility. My classification is based on
what it produces, which is mainly graphics & media items. This is what
the user is "after" when seeking a program like this - where can I get
icons from? how do I get the sound XYZ makes? can I get the images used
in the ABC interface?...
Click to expand...

So far we have three opinions and four possible locations - System
Utilities, Graphics, File Utilities and Multimedia. Not a good ratio . .
.. :)

It was nominated as a programming utility - System Utilities page - I'll
just leave it there (still trying to think of a really good subcategory
name).

Re - how to group programs in general. A fair number of programs fall
into two major categories. System, music, and media organizers could be
listed on the Organizer page or other pages specific to the task. Some
clipboard utilities are designed for internet use, etc. etc.. I lean
toward grouping by function (organizer) (clipboard) so that good
all-pupose utilities don't get overlooked.

Susan
 
Susan,

You've certainly been busy preparing for the 2004 process. I
generally like the new standard header. Ever the critic, I would like
to see a site search box in the header. Also thanks for using
relative links where appropriate.
Click to expand...

While using the PL 2004 pages, I noticed that the subtopics are rather
hard to read. The 2003 pages could also be clearer. Please consider
separating each one by 3(?) spaces so it is visually easier to scan.
Or possibly better, use columns. Or whatever solution you devise.

Thanks,
BillR
 
Back
Top