W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > December 2012

Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2012 10:58:21 +0000
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-Id: <136DB28E-1C74-49A4-8739-E07136723B6A@opera.com>
To: Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com>
On 11 Dec 2012, at 21:31, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com> wrote:

> =A few observations=
> 
> * +1 on More not being useful in this schema.
> * Several folks have commented to me that distinction between Q&A and Chat
> categories is not intuitive.

Maybe we should change them to more intuitive wording, such as "Post a question" and "Live IRC chat" ?

> * Unless we provide example-only or code-only pages, I'm not sure how that
> would manifest.
> 

Yeah, the suggestion of a "Code" link was really just another idea to throw out there.

> =An alternate global nav=
> 
> Can we help users out with our current architecture of the site by handing
> them those actual categories? We could do content types:
> 
> | Reference | Concepts & Tuts | Community | About | Blog | Join |

Hrm. I can see where you are going with this, but I also see a lot of issues with it, and don't necessarily think it is better than the direction we are going in already.

> 
> Where these pages point to the following subcategories:
> 
> ==Reference==
> Platform APIs (ptr to /apis/)
> "DOM" APIs
> CSS APIs
> SVG APIs
> JavaScript Language & Libraries
> 
> ==Concepts & Tuts==
> (aka, Docs: landing page that points to: beginners, general_concepts,
> html, css, accessibility, javascript, dom, svg)

My problems with this:

1. I think it is good to be able to go to one landing page for all documentation, be it ref or tutorial - docs currently does this. This immediately fragments the user's navigation decision and makes them think about what they want in the first instance. "HRM, I want to learn something about technology X. Do I want reference documents or tutorials?" versus "I want to learn something, so I'll start off by going straight to docs." Once they've made a click, they are already invested in their journey into the site.

2. I think people are more likely to want to search by technology, rather than type of documentation, so breaking it up like this in the first instance is not the best way to go, imo.

> 
> ==Community==
> Forums
> IRC
> Mail list

I quite like this idea, of lumping the different communication mechanisms together in one top level link. But I'm not sure if "Community" is the right term for it. Maybe "Talk to us" or "Contact us". The whole thing is a community.

> 
> ==Abou==
> Latest news (ptr to Blog)
> What it is
> How it was formed
> General Philosophy
> Stewards
> How you can join (ptr to Join)

Yup, so we agree on an "About" top level link.

> 
> ==Join==
> Register for this site
> Register for email list
> Logon to IRC
> Check out the forum
> Contribute (ptr to Getting_Started)

I think we do need to make the process of joining more intuitive from the outset, so maybe we could have a "Join" link. But surely it'd be better to have registering/logon for forum, mail list, IRC, etc. covered on the pages for those tools (e.g. what you've put under "Community", above) rather than having completely separate pages for them over here? On going to those page you could have a bit at the top that says "Login like this, or go and register like this", which could take them to the join page?
Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 10:58:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:36 UTC