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 09:54:20 -0800
To: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
CC: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD1985FB.4ED42%jburdeki@adobe.com>
I agree! So we are back to 5 then. I think that's fine. Better clear than
cluttered. 

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





-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
Date: Monday, January 14, 2013 9:40 AM
To: julee <julee@adobe.com>
Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

>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" 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-f
>>>>>>>>>>or
>>>>>>>>>> -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 17:55:00 UTC

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