|
Description
When you visit http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu/download to download the latest Ubuntu release, you currently get a huge dropdown menu. Then you have to scroll down a huge list filled with continent names, and a lot of strange looking server names -- where is Mirrors.brianm.name located anyway? I don't need so see all that.
We can do better. How about a world map that lets you click on your current location - or relative location?
To paraphrase user-interface guru and recent mozilla hire, Aza Raskin, whenever you ask a user to make a choice they don't care about, you fail as an interface designer. Me and probably 99.9% or the people who visit the Ubuntu download page don't care which specific server we download from. We just want our download. Give us a map, ask us to click on the part of the continent we're on, and leave the rest up to you.
REVISION:
Following our discussion below,
* we can use the user's IP to narrow the possibilities of which servers will best handle the request.
* possibly add an algorithm which takes into account both geographic proximity to user's ISP, as well as real-time server availability.
* returning a short list (of possibly three) servers which might best handle the request.
* naming the servers by city, state/province, country, and not by their (sometimes arcane) server names ...
continued ....
... as well as providing approximate distances from user's ISP. (see comments below)
* provide a localized map with pins on showing user's ISP, and (three?) suggested download servers.
* provide an option to list all available servers
* possibly get Google on board and/or developing a web widget ('universal mirror maps widget') what encapsulates all these features and ties in with the underlying mirroring system to be a truly portable solution for any organization hosting mirrored downloads.
finished product (example)---------
(with map on the side with pins for user's ISP and these three locations:)
* Altanta, Gerogia, USA (approx 23 miles)
* Denver, Colorado, USA (approx 258 miles)
* Sunnyvale, California, USA (approx 1648 miles)
click *here* to list all available servers
----------------------------------
Attachments
No attachments.
Duplicates
Comments
|
Ssdg wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 17:18
|
As a french guy, I'm registered at free a french ISP.
Some servers might be closer to my home, but I assume that my ISP's server are faster to reach than another one on another provider's network.
|
|
fcsonline wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 17:52
|
It could be better if you find two options:
'Download' | 'Download choosing location'
the first option (bigger than second one) download the image from one of your closer servers. The second option, you choose from the 'huge dropdown menu'.
+1
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 18:00
|
Again, this is something you, as an end user don't need to be bothered with. Every time you request a file, you're sending your IP address. It's not too hard for the maintainers of the download page to write a script that will check to see if you're ISP is already hosting the files you are asking to download.
Better yet, when you request the download page, the servers already have an idea of where you are based on your IP. The map should already have pins placed on the closest geographic locations based on your IP.
Merci for helping me develop my idea. :-)
|
|
a3_nm wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 18:00
|
Ssdg : +1
The option to choose location should still be available for advanced users.
(A sensible choice could perhaps be made automatically based on the IP address.)
|
|
a3_nm wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 18:01
| |
Ubun2ideas : +1, that was what I meant in the last sentence of my previous comment (yours got posted while I was writing it).
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 18:09
|
@Ssdg: My previous comment was directed to you. (Sorry, I forgot to write '@Ssdg:' on the top of that post.)
@fcsonline: I've thought about allowing both options. Perhaps that's a good idea. In my opinion though, the focus should be on what's simplest - in this case, the map.
The alternative option (drop down menu) can still be provided, if people prefer it, but it's presence on the download page should be lower on the visual hierarchy. In other words, people should have to look a tiny bit more to find it -- similar (in concept) to how the download page provides a little checkbox for downloading the alternative install CD.
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 18:11
| |
@a3_nm: What else can I say except "Great minds think alike" :-)
|
|
fcsonline wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 18:48
| |
@Ubun2ideas: Ok, the second option as a map, but why a newbie user has to choose the location?. He only wants to download the file. One click!
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 19:35
|
@fcsonline: Thanks. Hey, I'm all for 'one click'. In fact, my Aza Raskin inspiration comes from a talk he did called 'Don't make me click' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuELwq2ThJE Warning: it's kinda long.).
That said, what happens when the geographically closest server is swamped with requests - as can certainly happen when new releases are .. um released. What's the simplest way of solving that issue, requiring the least amount of interaction by the end user? If we stick with 'one click' do we then force the main download server to speed test each server on a regular basis or at download time? Doesn't that put unnecessary load on it, and isn't the point of mirroring to distribute load?
What about this: Using the IP, we can narrow the scope of servers most likely to satisfy the user's request. We somehow present that shortened list of servers to the user. This can be done visually (ie. on a map with pins) and / or with text. Visual information can aid the user in having a sense of proximity. The text can also aid in this. The list can have approximate distances from request ISP. The list can be sorted in order of descending geographical proximity. The actual server names need not be given (so I don't have to see stuff like "Mirrors.brianm.name"). Maybe instead servers will be labeled by "city, state/ province, country". The end result might look something like this:
---
* Altanta, Gerogia, USA (approx 23 miles)
* Denver, Colorado, USA (approx 258 miles)
* Sunnyvale, California, USA (approx 1648 miles)
click *here* to list all available servers
--
Perhaps the map would not be stictly necessary given this strategy, but it could still be a nice accompaniment. **We don't need pins on every location, just those corresponding to the shorted list provided.**
Please let me know what you think.
|
|
fcsonline wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 20:48
|
@Ubun2ideas: thinking in general, not only for this download case. A usability concept. The users purpose is download the file, why they have choose a server by distance?
I think this list you propose is a good idea, but could be better if we provide the list ordered by server load.
* Altanta, Gerogia, USA (less avaliable)
* Denver, Colorado, USA (less available)
* Sunnyvale, California, USA (available)
Usability reflexions. Sorry ;)
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 20:49
|
I just sent an email to labs.google.com referencing this selection. (Email is below). Maybe Ubuntu and Google can collaborate on the creation of a 'universal mirror maps widget' that could be used on any number of download sites that employ mirrors - like other open source projects (even other linux distros), mozilla, etc.
Original email ---
Subject: Request for help on this Ubuntu Brainstorm idea.
I have an idea for a web widget that uses Google Maps functionality to assist users who download from systems that are mirrored, such as Ubuntu's download servers.
Original idea posted by me at:
"Please Choose a Location" from Ubuntu download page should be a map.
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/11375/
Wouldn't it be great if Google created a little web widget that aided in this? Imagine a little bit of code that could be put on a webpage, that whenever an end user wanted to download a file from a set of mirrors (like Ubuntu, Debian, and maybe even Mozilla) uses, the user would get this:
* Google map with pins showing
a) their ISP location (based on IP address of user)
b) the location of the closest (3?) servers
* some text along the lines of:
* Altanta, Gerogia, USA (approx 23 miles)
* Denver, Colorado, USA (approx 258 miles)
* Sunnyvale, California, USA (approx 1648 miles)
click *here* to list all available servers
I thought of you because I know you guys have love for Ubuntu. Moreover, you know the Google Maps API so well that integrating it with mirroring systems shouldn't be that difficult for you guys (or one of your Summer of Code participants) to do. The end result could be a universal mirror maps widget that could be used by any number of organizations. Maybe Mozilla would also be interested in using it. I heard their servers got jammed during the Firefox 3 release. If they had provided users with a more distributed model of um.. distribution, maybe that wouldn't have happened.
Please let me know what you think.
Regards,
end ---
|
|
fcsonline wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 21:08
| |
Google provides the API. You can use it as you want. You could create the widget. So easy.
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 21:12
|
@fcsonline: Thanks. I feel we're both getting at the same point.
Taking my ego out of the way, I appreciate the discussion we're having. Honestly I don't know who's idea would be better to implement. I don't want to 'split hairs' with you, and yet I welcome the creativity that comes out of discussion.
I like your idea, and yet, I honestly don't know how feasible it would be to report real-time loads, especially during peak usage times. Maybe we could require the 'less busy' (ie. more available) servers to 'ping in' on a fairly regular basis. As their load increased, so would the time in between 'pinging in'.
What happens, however, when all the servers are under equally heavy loads? Maybe this is a useless question to ask, maybe not. In those cases, perhaps we could just widen the search for the 3 servers to suggest to the user. For example, I'm in the US. Maybe all the North American servers will be busy at the same time because it's when we're all awake. In that case, downloading from Iceland, Japan or Africa might be quicker - so why not suggest those three servers to the user?
The algorithm can take into account both geography and server availability in selecting which servers to suggest to the user.
What do you think?
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 21:16
|
@fcsonline:
RE: Google provides the API. You can use it as you want. You could create the widget. So easy.
Yes. Thank goodness for open API's :-) The truth is, I wouldn't know the first thing about integrating it with the mirror system, or this algorithm we're discussing above :-(
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 21:22
|
@fcsonline:
RE: An example: http://maps.forum.nu/gm_markers_from_db.php
Thanks. Still, wouldn't it be better to have it be more automated? I mean, wouldn't it be better to have it somehow communicate with the system that handles the mirroring and updating of the mirrors? That way you wouldn't have to manually enter it, and manually maintain the list.
|
|
fcsonline wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 21:47
|
@ubun2ideas:
I don't that this list would be as dynamic as having a system for maintain the tables. Otherwise, such as receiving the load, we would have to update the tables. But I don't think I would be difficult. Any other map from Google Maps already contains more information.
|
|
bruce89 wrote on the 21 Jul 08 at 23:28
| |
I have one word: OpenStreetMap.
|
|
jens wrote on the 29 Jul 08 at 09:41
|
Sometimes, the geographically closest server is not the one serving you fastest, as this depends also on bandwith etc.
Wouldn't it be possible to measure the response time of a small number of probable candidate servers? This is basically what you'd do manually: start the download, and when it's too slow, chose another location and start all over. Pings package return time could do.
|
|
Ubun2ideas wrote on the 29 Jul 08 at 17:30
|
@jens: Thanks. I think what you are saying is in line with mine and fcsonline's comments above. In my comments above, I also suggested implementing a system which takes server and bandwidth availability into account.
Thanks for your comments. Obviously there is interest in measuring just how available a file is, which possibly takes both geographic and server availability into account.
|
|
jens wrote on the 31 Jul 08 at 22:24
| |
@Ubun2ideas: Yes, indeed. I just used Synaptic packet manager for the very first time (I'm an absolute Ubuntu newbie) and discovered to my surprise that this is exactly what you can already do: just click the "choose best location" button and it will ping the available sites to choose the fastest one for you. So I think developers could use copy&paste...
|
|
kf7xm wrote on the 11 Aug 08 at 18:17
|
Ummm -- (cough) -- Geographic closeness is
not important. I am in Northeastern Nevada,
USA. If I had a heart attack. I would be
transported to the University of Utah
Medical Center. But my internet feed
goes via Reno and Sacramento. The fact that
the University of Utah is easier to drive to
than UC Berkly does not mean that IP packets
get there more easily. The opposite is true.
May I humbly suggest that Ubuntu already
has a download method which automatically
selects multiple download sites based on
network availability. It's called BitTorrent.
Why don't we use it?
|
Post your comment
|
