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

Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:40:07 +0000
Cc: public-webplatform@w3.org
Message-Id: <02620A4C-D239-4E3C-8CEF-002EF6D8AD74@opera.com>
To: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
This is the thing - tutorials is part of docs, so I thought we were getting rid of that one too. Having both is confusing in the same way as having both Q&A and Discuss is confusing…?

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 17:26, Julee <julee@adobe.com> wrote:

> 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"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
>>>>>>>>> -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 17:40:51 UTC

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