On Tue, 2010-07-06 at 19:11 +0200, david blanchard wrote: > We could break each category (game/project/company/references) into two > pieces on their home page, first piece with the core information and second > piece with the rest but I've tried to think about it and I'm not satisfied, > it does not work very well (but you might have ideas about it that I did not > have).
I think that would be the best option - I can easily add a template for a special box, that would by default only show the "essential" pages for that section, but have a link at the bottom to expand it and show the non-essential/draft pages related to that section. This way it would greatly limit the number of links/pages we show for each section, while still allowing to access and progressively build the other pages. > o second issue that has been bothering me is that the distinction > between game and project makes sense when it comes to addressing separately > gamers and contributors, but I don't find it very coherent, there are some > bits that could belong to both categories. Of course - I don't think any hierarchy we'll come up with can properly isolate the pages into a single section non-ambiguously. We can always have links to the same pages from different sections. > * create a specific view for gamers and a specific view for > contributors, distinct from the main structure of the rest of the wiki, but > that points towards existing elements of the wiki. For instance, on the home > of the wiki, we show one block 'contribute' and one block 'play', each block > leading to a specific page. These two pages extract from the rest of the > wiki only the core elements for a player and for a contributor. So it's not > the same organization as we have today, though we already have the blocks. > * Actually we may need a third block to present the studio - which > would lead to a page that has links towards the pitch and the bp and the > values, and maybe also explaining the overall organization (social contract, > role of the studio within the community, etc). I'm not sure how this actually differs from what we already have in the wiki? Except from the fact that you change the name of "Game" to "Gamer" and from "Project" to "Contributor", the current portals are already views of individual pages that we can reference from anywhere. > * Merge the project and game categories, so that we can organize it > better (game as it is, current developments, current brainstorm, guidelines, > etc). > * The wiki would then have the following structure : 3 categories > (game and company and reference) that contain all the content of the wiki. > And 2 (or 3) specific views, one page for players and one page for > contributors, that point towards elements of the wiki that we think are > relevant for these two pages. > This, according to me, gives us more flexibility and more clarity. Again, I'm not sure what would be the benefits here - could you give a rough map of each of the sections? Maybe I would understand better then. > * Does it make sense ? If it is unclear how to structure things, I can > draft on power point some sketches Please - but not on PowerPoint ;p > * I think we should have a link to the site map (present at the bottom > of pages ?) Would be good to have a list of the most important pages at the very bottom of the pages - a bit like what we find on most "web2.0" websites now, cf http://www.ubuntu.com/ > * It would be nice if each page could show the path (ex : home > > project > guidelines > social contract) so that the user knows where he is, > how much work would it be to add it on mediawiki ? A wiki doesn't actually have a "tree" structure - it's more a graph, where you can access a single page through different paths. So it wouldn't be possible to tell, for a single page, what would be its path to the home. It doesn't prevent us from choosing one for each page, and manually adding it on the top for each of them. Or to add a banner, a color or whatever to the top of the page to give a feeling of the "area" of the wiki we are currently visiting, though. > * Project pages, I was wondering how to break up pages regarding > development of the game (and links towards tools), Xav please let me know > because you have a better view than me on the various tools : > o Current status of the game (existing quick insight + we could add on > the wiki release notes of what has been added in the builds) > o Currently in development (and future builds for which we already > know what will be developed) : link towards the list of features which is on > the task tool (mediawiki TBC) ? Each feature broken into tasks in this tool > * Specifications of these features through a link towards blueprints > of Launchpad Yes, except that we need to actually chose between Launchpad and the wiki to handle blueprints (and milestones/tasks). Otherwise we'll be duplicating things. The way I see it, we should keep using Launchpad for a while, and progressively deploy the new task tracker on the wiki and migrate things there - Launchpad has implemented a lot of tricks&quirks to handle release management (it has been done for this, and is actively used by large projects), so it's good to get some experience over there. And then we can try to progressively get the same things on the wiki, and tailor it to our specific needs in the process. > o Brainstorm for the next builds : link towards uservoice > * Blog : why not but I'm not sure how people will know what they can > find on wiki vs blog, don't you think it can become confusing ? That's two completely different things - a blog is something we follow, and regularly read news&updates from to stay up to date on the project (a bit like an "announcement" mailing-list). The wiki is more a reference, where we'll go get a specific information we need. Xavier. _______________________________________________ Hackit Bar mailing list - [email protected] Wiki: http://community.hackit.cx/ List: http://community.hackit.cx/ml/ Forum: http://community.hackit.cx/forum/ Ideas: http://community.hackit.cx/ideas/ IRC: irc://irc.freenode.net/#politis
