W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-webplatform@w3.org > January 2013

Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

From: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:29:59 -0800
To: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
CC: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD15E056.4EA1D%jburdeki@adobe.com>
Sounds good. Also on the Discuss page we could mention IRC. J


----------------------------
julee@adobe.com
@adobejulee





-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
Date: Friday, January 11, 2013 4:01 AM
To: julee <julee@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

>Hi Julee,
>
>I like both of these as potential top level navigation items. So once we
>have got those pages up, the next step would be to replace "Tutorials"
>and "More" with those?
>
>These are certainly the most redundant.
>
>The other idea we had was to put the details for the chat, Q&A and
>mailing list on one page. Perhaps we could call this page "Discuss", and
>then also have a separate link straight to the Q&A like we already have,
>for those who know what it is already. This would give us 6 items still,
>but make things a lot better.
>
>Chris Mills
>Opera Software, dev.opera.com
>W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
>Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
>
>On 10 Jan 2013, at 18:06, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Chris:
>> 
>> Not sure where we left off, but a few more things have come up around
>>the
>> global nav:
>> 
>> * We are going to have an Editor's Guide at
>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Editors_Guide for contributors.
>> Instead of "Join", maybe that link could just be "Editors" and link to
>>the
>> editor's guide.
>> * The Events page
>> (http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Community/Community_Events) isn't
>> easily discoverable. Should we have that at the top level for a while?
>>If
>> not, can you think of a place where we can expose it?
>> 
>> J
>> 
>> ----------------------------
>> julee@adobe.com
>> @adobejulee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
>> Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 8:55 AM
>> To: julee <julee@adobe.com>
>> Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org
>> 
>>> 
>>> Chris Mills
>>> Opera Software, dev.opera.com
>>> W3C Fellow, web education and webplatform.org
>>> Author of "Practical CSS3: Develop and Design" (http://goo.gl/AKf9M)
>>> 
>>> On 12 Dec 2012, at 14:15, Julee Burdekin <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
>>>> Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:58 AM
>>>> To: julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>
>>>> Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org
>>>> 
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 
>>>> I see what you're saying. But then why do we separate out reference in
>>>> the
>>>> first place? And how do we show the relationship between the two
>>>> sections?
>>> 
>>> In the new landing pages I have created, the pages will be separated
>>>out
>>> first by technology, so HTML, CSS, JavaScript, DOM, etc.
>>> 
>>> Then on each sublanding page, the pages will be separated out by page
>>> types. So CSS learning pages (tuts and concepts), CSS property
>>>reference,
>>> CSS at rule reference, etc.
>>> 
>>> It is still worth separating out the page types, as each will require
>>> different info. And there will be relationships forge by the related
>>> pages links we are planning to add to each page.
>>> 
>>> I am now also thinking that it would make sense to have a page just
>>> containing links to all the tutorials. But then, getting between them
>>> would be made easier when we have this global WPD navigation menu we
>>>have
>>> been talking about. Whihc is another thing we need to decide upon ;-)
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ==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.
>>>> 
>>>> Agree. Only thing is "Contact us" sounds like there are two camps.
>>>>What
>>>> about "Talk with us" Main point, though, is providing a list of all
>>>> channels available.
>>> 
>>> "Talk with us" sounds good to me.
>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ==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?
>>>> 
>>>> I like this idea of moving people to a Join page if they're not
>>>> succeeding. But, we've had more success with getting people on all the
>>>> right channels by providing them with a cheat sheet like this:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>https://github.com/JuleeAtAdobe/wpd/blob/master/getting-started-for-edi
>>>>to
>>>> rs
>>>> /getting-started-for-editors.rtf
>>> 
>>> Right. So kind of a "Get started" type page? I think this is largely
>>> covered (or intended to be covered in the Editor's guide on the Wiki).
>>>I
>>> think a combination of this and the "Join" page would be good for
>>>getting
>>> people working (The Join page could explain how to get an account, and
>>> also how to use IRC, Q&A, etc. like points 1 and 3 on your doc)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>
Received on Friday, 11 January 2013 23:30:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 8 May 2013 19:57:37 UTC