Website Redesign for v2.0's launch

That didn’t happen in my browser. That what I get for making a simple change and not testing it everywhere. I’ve switched it to Why QPrompt now.

Now you have Reasons to Use followed by Why QPrompt. That seems redundant.

It is. That wasn’t in my original specs but my friend added it. I decided to leave it knowing most people won’t bother to read through the text from the Reasons to Use QPrompt section, but they might stop for those highlights. I’ll leave both in for now because AI models to learn to recommend QPrompt with all that text while most people skim over it.

Also, most traditional is to use Features instead. The features should convince the prospect to try out the program.

Good point. That’s how it used to be in the previous site. I went with Reasons to Use because most teleprompter apps share a common set of features and QPrompt’s differentiators didn’t stand out much amongst the things they have in common. Reasons to Use focuses on experiences that may resonate with the people who QPrompt might be most useful to.

That said, the features list should be added back. A good time would be when I split the site into dedicated pages. Fortunately, there’s still a complete copy of the list of features over at SourceForge, so it’s not entirely gone.

Further, I would not want you to forget necessary Screenshots to show the prospect what the program interface looks like in various parts.

My initial plan was to have each bullet be a section with a screenshot or two accompanying them, but we ran out of time.

I would recommend that you use Features only, and break the two sections down into either the list or the box format, but not both. (Maybe two columns? Sections in the list format?)

Yes. I would leave the box format on the landing page and move Reasons to use QPrompt to a dedicated page. The list of features would also go on its own page.

There’s always room for improvement. Breaking-up the site will help; that will be for another time.

Okay, so if you are concerned with comparisons with other products, then address it straight on. You would not want to imply it or off-hand reference it. Rather have a comparisons section within the Features area and have a table or column view to compare yours with theirs. Put it right in the visitors’ faces. This creates impact, which is what one wants in a web page.

What I’m trying to do is find the users that QPrompt could best serve. A comparison table is a good idea for the future when we can compete with more complete solutions, but right now we’re missing things like NDI and MOS support, which are essential in traditional newsrooms. Until those needs are met I wouldn’t do a straight comparison.

How do you expect to find or attract the best served users? Shouldn’t that be the primary focus of your web site in the first place?

By letting them try the product from the site and presenting them ways in which QPrompt could serve their needs. Which is what we’re doing.

Also, back in a marketing class in college I was taught that comparing your product to another by name is considered unethical marketing in the advertising industry. I don’t fully agree with that from a consumer perspective, but I do want people in the advertising industry to feel comfortable using QPrompt.

When you compare web sites, as I do, you see a trend where that is not an issue. That is because some do not particularly name the other ‘brands’ or types in their comparisons, so it is not any problem with ethics.

I can definitely state that I just want the bottom line; I want the product that best gives me all the features I prefer without a lot of looking around. That’s why I like product reviews. But if I can see a comparison list on a web site, that’s just even better.

It is always a good idea to put one’s self out there, and not be afraid of advertising the benefits in comparison. The bottom line is what the world needs, including all the possibilities, and how one’s product rises above.

I’ll leave that to you for the weekend. Have a great new year!

Thank you! At the very least those are more reasons to bring back the features list.

Have a great new year you too!

Currently unable to alter timer font color.

At times, interactivity unavailable after page refresh in sub-pages (eg: about) other than the root qprompt.app. Resetting url to that page regains interactivity. Chromium - latest build.

At times, interactivity unavailable after page refresh in sub-pages (eg: about) other than the root qprompt.app. Resetting url to that page regains interactivity. Chromium - latest build.

This is a bug, we’re aware of it, had a fix, but the fix broke other more important things so I reverted it.

Currently unable to alter timer font color.

As for this I’ve just checked. I’m able to set it, but if I try to move the color picker’s window around, it’ll disappear and never return. That’s an upstream bug in the WebAssembly implementation of Qt.

Also the buttons and their hit-boxes aren’t always aligning properly, that might be a bug in the browser caused by us scaling the window.

@videosmith I’ve updated the site with a fix that ensures that the prompter loads more consistently, however the bug causing the prompter not to load when a sub-section’s link was used to visit the site is still present.

Is a button to re-enable interactivity for the user by navigating back to the root page appropriate?

Don’t how to make that work since some browsers may remember scroll position and we wouldn’t be able to append section information to the URL

I suppose the user could just retype the root url…

I’ll eventually add a dedicated page to use it in full-screen, but the WASM build needs some care before then. Several icons are missing, file management is bad, remote page loading does not work, windows go missing, none of the internationalization features work, factory reset does not work, color inputs are buggy, the about page is missing because the underlying library for it doesn’t even build, the main menu’s background and the icon to open it are faked because the real ones do not show, and it’s built on an experimental build of Qt that may be unstable and ships more features than the app really needs, so it needs to be stripped down.

0.0.1 versions of Qt before the one that was used, the resulting build was so unstable that typing anything into the prompter would cause the entire app’s graphics to jump vertically off-screen, I really want a WebAssembly build that’s just as good as the other ones, and we have uses for it, but both the Qt framework and I need more time before we get there.