Download button on Bootstrap homepage points to wrong archive

[arechsteiner]

The download button on http://getbootstrap.com/ points to the wrong archive:

https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/archive/v3.0.0.zip

Not sure what it is. Looks like the source of the documentation or something.

The download link on http://getbootstrap.com/getting-started/ points to the right archive:

https://github.com/twbs/bootstrap/releases/download/v3.0.0/bootstrap-3.0.0-dist.zip

[cvrebert]

No, that's the right archive. It's a snapshot of the entire Bootstrap source code, which includes the docs.

[arechsteiner]

That is more than confusing. Especially since there are HTML docs in there which are in fact Jekyll (I suppose) source files with YAML front matter and such.

The average bootstrap users will have no use for all of this and will be confused.

What you want when you click "Get Bootstrap" is simply all the files you need to implement Bootstrap into your project. The Jekyll source code of the docs is not one of those things.

To me, this looks like a poor decision as far as user experience goes. Can you explain the reasoning behind this @cvrebert ?

[cvrebert]

@arechsteiner We're not thrilled with having a bunch of HTML cluttering up the root folder either. We are actively looking for a way to let us move the docs into a /docs/ subfolder (the details of the situation make it not as straightforward as it sounds). A nontrivial number of people want to be able to view the docs locally; the docs are also a decent testbed for trying out the effects of someone's customizations. And it's easier to link to the whole-repo download rather than preparing another custom distribution. Hence, we include the docs.

A lot of people find the examples useful, so those are likewise included.
The full repo archive also includes the LESS source and non-minified JavaScript, which are necessary for those who want to customize Bootstrap (who we hope are an increasing and nontrivial subset of our users).

Also, as you point out, we already link to more download options on the Getting Started page for those users who really care about the differences.
But if there must be a lone Download button without much further explanatory text, like on the homepage, then it makes sense to have that download serve as many use-cases as possible, hence why we err on the side of including more resources rather than less.
Otherwise, we'd surely get complaints that "The download is missing stuff! OMGWTFBBQ!!!1"; trust me, I know from experience, we would :-)

[arechsteiner]

@cvrebert: But you're not including the docs, you're including the source to the docs? Further compilation is needed to see the docs. Sorry, this can't be worth it. Imagine you're new to Bootstrap and you download this archive, look into it. What will you find? What will you click first? Probably a HTML file. Surprise: it's some fucked up source file displaying in your browser. How will you know what is even part of "Bootstrap" (the part you need) and what isn't? How many percent of users who are just checking it out will not even bother looking into all of this and never start using Bootstrap?

I see that some people need the source of Bootstrap, or the docs, to try things out, but those are advanced users. I'd bet that the majority of Bootstrap users just want everything they need to implement a Bootstrap project and more importantly: be spared of anything they don't need.

Why not have the big fat download button just download the framework (as in http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/) and have a link or smaller button "Get source"?

Please don't tell me you're trying to keep it simple because the exact opposite is the case right now.

I believe this hurts Bootstrap.

[cvrebert]

We state how to run the docs in the README file. As we learned from v2.x.x, keeping precompiled docs in the repo is painful. And if the average joe can't figure out how to run the docs, that's fine, since they can just go to getbootstrap.com and view the hosted docs.

Again, you're preaching to the choir regarding moving the docs out of the root directory.

How will you know what is even part of "Bootstrap" (the part you need) and what isn't?

The Getting Started page, which we also link to in the README, explains that. At some point, failing to read any basic docs is squarely the user's fault. And figuring out the directory structure isn't exactly rocket science anyway.

be spared of anything they don't need.

Is disk space suddenly at a huge premium or something? As a user, deleting unnecessary stuff is easier than figuring out something is missing, hunting around for its download location, downloading it separately, and then (if applicable) figuring out how to re-integrate it.
And needs change over time, so they may well end up needing the original source code at some point. I've gone down the "customize Bootstrap without using the LESS" path myself, and it was somewhat painful.
And having the download differ from the Git repo is itself kinda confusing.

Why not have the big fat download button just download the framework (as in http://getbootstrap.com/2.3.2/) and have a link or smaller button "Get source"?

"The framework" isn't synonymous with the precompiled CSS, for one. @mdo also wants to encourage customization. But I don't have an answer as for why there isn't some sort of second button; wouldn't be unreasonable IMO.
@mdo: You designed the homepage; care to chime in?

[arechsteiner]

@cvrebert

Is disk space suddenly at a huge premium or something?

This has nothing to do with disk space (and you know that). It's about seeing this load of directories and files and not knowing what is essential and what isn't. Most of it is "useless" for the average user, so why put it in their way?

As a user, deleting unnecessary stuff is easier than figuring out something is missing, hunting around for its download location, downloading it separately, and then (if applicable) figuring out how to re-integrate it.

Assuming he knows what he is doing (which a new user doesn't). Have you ever started learning/using a new framework? Did you know what was essential from the beginning and what you could delete without consequence?

Do whatever you want guys, I'm just trying to make one point:

The way it is now is not user friendly. Leave alone beginner friendly...

Another point: On the start page the "Download Bootstrap" button downloads the full source, on the "Get Started" page, the very same button downloads only the dist version. This is inconsistent. If you really want to deliver the whole source to everyone, then at least be consistent about it. Why would one download button download the source and the other download just the framework?

My proposed solution: Two buttons "Download Bootstrap" and "Download Source". The former should only download the framework (-> compiled CSS/JS).

[cvrebert]

I think that that particular phrasing of the button texts is confusing to the average user, but I am broadly in support of 2 buttons and making the 2 pages more consistent.

[arechsteiner]

@cvrebert: The exact phrasing of the buttons is negotiable ;-) I will be happy if a lean version is within an arms reach, preferably as default download

[arechsteiner]

@mdo: Could we update this asap instead of waiting for 3.0.1? People are being confused by this I think. I can confirm this from personal feedback, and just now I stumbled over a post on Reddit:

http://www.reddit.com/r/bootstrap/comments/1moy7r/just_donwloaded_bootstrap_3_what_the_hell_is_this/

Quote from the thread by Gifted_ghost:

I hope I'm wrong because I genuinely come from ignorance, but it seems to me that the Bootstrap folks added a ton of complexity layers just for the sake of it. I mean, I just want to make a couple of simple html files, play around with the less files and watch the thing fly, but I have all these files that suggest that I need to install ruby+grunt+node.js+who knows what else just to see the documentation