Call for improvements to Table of Third-Party Patches

Question

We've been producing the Table of Third-Party Patches posts, and worksheet, for almost 2 years now, and I'm curious how the organization and formatting of the post and worksheet works for you.

More specifically I'm soliciting any ideas for ways to improve the readability or effectiveness of the information presented.

Please post any suggestions to this thread, and thank you for your thoughts!

-Lawrence

LGarvin · Answer

Thank you for calling my attention to #1. That's a personal discipline/attention-to-detail issue on my part. The in-post table has been updated to reflect Firefox v26.

For #2, I believe Acrobat is the only product that fits this scenario, and we simply don't provide the v10 and later updates, because Adobe does. However, I see no harm in adding a footnote to that cell explaining that Acrobat v10+ updates are not published in the Patch Manager catalog. Done.

For #3, we don't archive content, so that's not an option; however, posting to a new thread may be an option. The question would be: How frequently? I will look into this option.

ak00 · Answer

Three items (2 of them related):

1. Update the forum posted table to reflect the spreadsheet (specifically FF v26) - minor, but you did ask.

2. On items where the version is clearly out of date, offer a quick blurb as to why it's not updated (specifically, Acrobat v9 rather than v10 or v11).

3. Most of the comments seem to be related to an older patch table, so maybe archive them off (nothing older than 6 months) or start a new thread.  Any comments/responses that apply to subsequent patch tables can be made a "sticky" comment of sorts.

Hope that helps.

LGarvin · Answer

I like the table as it exists today.

Don't change nothin' is a valid response too. :-)

Thanks Pat!