- From: Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com>
- Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 17:40:07 +0000
- To: Julee <julee@adobe.com>
- Cc: public-webplatform@w3.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"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 >>>>>>>>> -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 17:40:51 UTC