Re: Proposal for updating links on webplatform.org

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 17:07:05 UTC