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

Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

From: Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:32:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CANQy2y1bwUKw+FJVYySH3Fpthy9BG9wdOnKm4M5fmMshaEn33w@mail.gmail.com>
To: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
Cc: Julee <julee@adobe.com>, "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
We have, http://talk.webplatform.org/  So why not just fix that up?


On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:06 PM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org> wrote:

> Yup, I agree that we'll still need a separate chat page, but I think the
> discuss page has a higher value add. We'll need to figure out some place to
> put it though. Hrm.
>
> 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 16:54, Jonathan Garbee <jonathan@garbee.me> wrote:
>
> > My only concern is the chat page. It is going to eventually actually
> have a webchat client (hopefully iframed) back on there at some point. I do
> agree with doing a discussion page, but the chat page should still exist
> for the webchat later on. So, as long as the new discussion page links out
> to the current chat page then everything should be fine.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 10:53 AM, Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org> wrote:
> > 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"Š 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 Monday, 14 January 2013 17:32:53 UTC

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