- From: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:29:59 -0800
- To: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
- CC: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
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-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 Friday, 11 January 2013 23:30:26 UTC