Download options possible confusions

[brandelune]

"Windows with JRE" can be interpreted as "OmegaT for Windows, with a JRE included in Windows", when we mean "OmegaT, including Windows JRE".

That's something we should find a way to fix.

[Kazephil]

Looking at the website itself, here are a few possibilities:

Option 1

Current	Proposed
Windows with JRE	Windows, with 32-bit JRE
Windows with 64-bit JRE	Windows, with 64-bit JRE
Windows without JRE	Windows, without JRE
macOS Unsigned	macOS Unsigned
Linux with 64-bit JRE	Linux, with 64-bit JRE
Cross-platform without JRE	Cross platform, without JRE

Essentially, just add commas to separate the platform from the mention of the JRE.
This might still be ambiguous for non-native speakers.

Option 2

Current	Proposed
Windows with JRE	Windows edition with 32-bit JRE
Windows with 64-bit JRE	Windows edition with 64-bit JRE
Windows without JRE	Windows edition without JRE
macOS Unsigned	macOS Unsigned edition
Linux with 64-bit JRE	Linux edition with 64-bit JRE
Cross-platform without JRE	Cross platform edition without JRE

Adding "edition" should make it clear, in conjuction with the "Standard Version - OmegaT 6.0.0" heading, that we're referring to the OmegaT (platform) edition with/without the applicable JRE.

In this case, we whould also change the "Platform" table header to "Edition"

Option 3

Current	Proposed
Windows with JRE	OmegaT for Windows, with 32-bit JRE
Windows with 64-bit JRE	OmegaT for Windows, with 64-bit JRE
Windows without JRE	OmegaT for Windows, without JRE
macOS Unsigned	OmegaT for macOS, Unsigned
Linux with 64-bit JRE	OmegaT for Linux, with 64-bit JRE
Cross-platform without JRE	Cross platform OmegaT, without JRE

Somewhat redundant given the section heading, but it leaves zero room for ambiguity. Again, I think the "Platform" table header should be changed to "Edition" because the platform is no longer the primary focus of the entry in each row.

Whichever option is chosen, I also think we should change the "Detailed instructions" table header to "Detailed description" or "Additional information", and create a blurb for each entry that doesn't currently have one that, for example, explains that "Windows with JRE" means a version of OmegaT that includes a JRE, which means there is no need to have Java installed on the system, or that a different version of Java can be installed on the system without interference between the version used by OmegaT and the system version.

Similarly, the "without JRE" blurb would specify that OmegaT needs to be run with a version of Java already installed on the system.

[brandelune]

What about:

• including a Windows 32 JRE
• including a Windows 64 JRE

or

• Windows 32 JRE included
  etc.

[Kazephil]

What about:

• including a Windows 32 JRE
• including a Windows 64 JRE

Changing "with" to "including" doesn't really change a great deal. The meaning is exactly the same, and you still need to make it part of one of the options I outlined originally.

Also, it has to be "32-bit (64-bit) JRE for Windows", because the distinction isn't between 32-bit and 64-bit Windows. You can still use the 32-bit JRE on 64-bit Windows (why you'd do that, I'm not sure, but it can be done).

So, using the 32-bit JRE as an example for each option, we'd get:

1. Windows, including a 32-bit JRE
2. Windows edition including a 32-bit JRE
3. OmegaT for Windows, including a 32-bit JRE

This actually makes option 2 more ambiguous, and adding a comma ("Windows edition, including a 32-bit JRE") isn't much of an improvement.

or

• Windows 32 JRE included
  etc.

More or less the same issue as with "including":

1. Windows, 32-bit JRE included
2. Windows edition, 32-bit JRE included
3. OmegaT for Windows, 32-bit JRE included

Now, both options 1 and 2 are very ambiguous, even with a comma.

On a purely preferential note, I also kind of like the "with JRE" and "without JRE" parallel.

As variants on Options 2 and 3, we could also use:

• Edition with 32-bit JRE for Windows
• OmegaT with 32-bit JRE for Windows

You could use "package" or "version" instead of "edition" in option 2.

Hmm... I just had another idea:

Current	Proposal
Windows with JRE	Windows installer packaged with 32-bit JRE
Windows with 64-bit JRE	Windows installer packaged with 64-bit JRE
Windows without JRE	Windows installer with no JRE
macOS Unsigned	macOS archive, Unsigned
Linux with 64-bit JRE	Linux archive packaged with 64-bit JRE
Cross-platform without JRE	Cross-platform archive with no JRE

In this variant, you could use "including a" instead of "packaged with":

• Windows installer including a 32-bit JRE
  etc.

You could also keep "without a" instead of using "with no":

• Windows installer without a JRE
  etc.

One final idea would be to redesign the table slighly:

Platform	Variant	Detailed description
Windows	with 32-bit JRE	(information popover)
	with 64-bit JRE	(information popover)
	without JRE	(information popover)
macOS	Unsigned	(information popover)
Linux	with 64-bit JRE	(information popover)
Cross-platform	without JRE	(information popover)

Of course, in a proper HTML table, the Windows platform cells would be merged and centered.

Just a few extra thoughts...

[brandelune]

I like this proposal

Windows installer packaged with 32-bit JRE
Windows installer packaged with 64-bit JRE
Windows installer with no JRE
macOS archive, Unsigned
Linux archive packaged with 64-bit JRE
Cross-platform archive with no JRE

except that "archive" sounds like old and not used anymore.

What about:

macOS package, Unsigned
Linux package, with 64-bit JRE
Cross-platform package, with no JRE

[Kazephil]

except that "archive" sounds like old and not used anymore.

I'm not tied to "archive". I got the idea of "installer" and "archive" from the file types that get downloaded.

What about:

macOS package, Unsigned
Linux package, with 64-bit JRE
Cross-platform package, with no JRE

That works!

[Kazephil]

I just sent a PR to implement this.

[brandelune]

I just sent a PR to implement this.

Can we close ?