1. 27

as this is an announcement blog post, here’s a link to the tool’s website itself: https://opensource.axo.dev/oranda/ (conveniently also dogfooded so you can see what it looks like ;))

    1. 26

      Do people actually like these landing pages?
      When I end up on a page that looks like the “…into this” example I immediately look for the Github/Gitlab/etc link. I find the boring old Github-standard source tree with the rendered README.md to be a much more useful starting point than these landing pages.

      1. 13

        I did some what research on this for ggez once upon a time, reading every project page I could and trying to figure out what made me like or not like them, and comparing with others. The loose recipe I developed is more or less these things, in this order:

        • name and one-sentence description of what the hell your tool is
        • one-paragraph introduction/pitch
        • a few bullet points for features and non-features
        • actual meat now that the reader is still interested: example code, deeper discussions of the neat parts – though I find it difficult not to go TOO deep here; refer to other docs as much as possible, give the user entry points into the most useful things
        • Community/contact info
        • License

        This is far from the only recipe of course, and you always gotta modify it based on what you’re actually presenting. But that’s the format that tends to have all the stuff I actually want to see.

      2. 8

        These pages almost never have what I’m looking for, which is example code. I actively search “[unknown project] github” to avoid their homepage

        1. 1

          Hmm, if I’m looking for a binary download then example code isn’t exactly on the list

          1. 2

            Why would you want to download a binary for a tool you don’t know how to use?

        2. 1

          I’ve been playing around with oranda and IMO the primary target audience for this sort of tool are authors of command-line tools, not libraries. I find GitHub’s “source-first” layout suboptimal here since I’m mostly interested in installation options, including “curl|sh”. GitHub releases isn’t very friendly either.

      3. 5

        I find the boring old Github-standard source tree with the rendered README.md to be a much more useful starting point than these landing pages.

        Me too. I think there might be value into making a website instead, if it is well structured. But the whole idea of just presenting the exact same thing but with slicker visuals, sounds silly to me

        1. 3

          Besides the content the standard layout is a great feature too. With a github repo view my eyes are automatically drawn to certain areas because I know where to look for them. The “About” blurb, number of commits, certain files in the repo (for example I notice the Cargo.toml in this case). And then I scroll down and the README.md will be waiting for me which will be nice boring (meaning easy to read) Markdown, no distracting colors or fonts.

      4. 4

        Especially since the important information (repo.description) is missing on the landing page.

        Landing pages do work but the recipe is primarily designed for non-engineers.

        We have a different landing page recipe which usually involves code

      5. 2

        I do tend to avoid them. Specifically because my brain doesn’t like the overly big “install” and “source” part. It first wants to have something like

        • what is this about
        • are there releases
        • how old are those releases
        • (for) which OS / language / framework
        • how do the issues look like (anything catching my eye)

        And most of them can be gained faster from the github page. The above example could definitely be changed to include those things, but most of the time these websites are just SEO/PR fluff and have no content.

        But I’m also not an ‘end user’ - and probably a power user..

      6. 2

        When I’m not looking specifically for the source, landing pages have more info like a link to docs, community stuff, etc. There’s also some room for positive design personality that you won’t get being embedded inside a forge’s chrome—it doesn’t have to be the obnoxious, full-screen-banner-followed-by-3-callouts sort of layout.

        What I don’t like is bloating a README to hell & back with far more than it needs—stuff like massive image list of sponsors, badges for CI results, heck, basically any sort of multimedia that isn’t a screenshot, is often better elsewhere. Ideally the README shouldn’t be a RENDERME just to read it too.

        Basically I think the landing pages are often too fluffy in design, but so are the READMEs. Many ‘contemporary’ READMEs should be the landing page, and the README should be cut down to be plain-text readable.

    2. 7

      Congratulations on the official announcement! oranda has been a joy to use and I’ve had great interactions with the Axo team while contributing fixes. Will definitely be using and recommending oranda for the foreseeable future :)

    3. 1

      I have to admit, that headline had me expecting another one of those full-stack programming languages like Opa which punish uMatrix users like me in exchange for allowing the developer to write a website as if it were a desktop application and not learn proper semantic HTML and CSS.

      Despite my having web dev experience, what oranda actually is looks like something I’ll probably use for hobby projects which otherwise wouldn’t get triaged high enough to have a GitHub Pages site at all. (Especially if they’re binary-producing projects where I want to make them a bit more accessible to people who wouldn’t know what a source code is if it walked up and shook their hand.)