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: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:26:04 -0800
To: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
CC: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD197EEF.4ECED%jburdeki@adobe.com>
I thought we were getting to:

* Docs
* Tutorials
* Editors


* Discuss
* Blog
* Events

J


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





-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:17 AM
To: julee <jburdeki@adobe.com>
Cc: julee <julee@adobe.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org"
<public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

>Under this plan, we would have two chat-related items - Q&A and Discuss.
>I guess that might be a bit confusing still, although I thought it might
>be worth considering, as the Discuss page would be general information,
>whereas Q&A is a separate domain with a specific function, and might be
>something people might want to access with one click. But yeah, we could
>certainly survive with just "Discuss"
>
>But that would lead us back to the problem of only being left with 5
>navigation items on the menu. I guess "Educate" could eventually be the
>6th item, when we start getting the educational resources sorted. But
>that will be a while yet.
>
>Can we live with 5 items in the navigation? ;-)
>
>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 14 Jan 2013, at 17:10, Julee Burdekin <jburdeki@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi, Chris:
>> 
>> Thanks for the write up. Please see my email to Garbee. Why are we
>> separating out one manner of communicating?
>> 
>> Also, yes, we're working on the editor's guide. We started working off
>>of
>> the proposal and are populating it here:
>> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/WPD:Editors_Guide
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> Julee
>> ----------------------------
>> julee@adobe.com
>> @adobejulee
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
>> Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 7:53 AM
>> To: julee <julee@adobe.com>
>> Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
>> Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org
>> 
>>> I have written up the proposed changes in a new bug -
>>> https://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=20664
>>> 
>>> If we have no dissenters, then I suggest we get this work implemented;
>>>I
>>> think it probably needs some more work done on the editorial guide and
>>> community page first though.
>>> 
>>> Julee, do you want to oversee getting the editorial guide finished? In
>>> the mean time, I can get the community pages sorted out?
>>> 
>>> 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 11 Jan 2013, at 23:29, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>-e
>>>>>>>> di
>>>>>>>> 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 Monday, 14 January 2013 17:26:38 UTC

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