- From: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 09:26:04 -0800
- To: Chris Mills <cmills@w3.org>
- CC: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
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-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 17:26:38 UTC