Re: Proposal for updating links on

-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Mills <>
Date: Wednesday, December 12, 2012 2:58 AM
To: julee <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: Proposal for updating links on

>On 11 Dec 2012, at 21:31, Julee Burdekin <> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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
>> 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?
>> ==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.
>> ==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:

Received on Wednesday, 12 December 2012 14:16:22 UTC