Andrus Adamchik wrote:
My idea of how this should be organized is to show at most 2-3
releases that we think of as "current" to avoid the clutter. And then
add "Other..." menu item in the bottom of documentation section that
points to the docs collections for the old releases. "1.1" should
probably go in the "Other" category.
Fair enough, but 1.2 and 2.0 are essentially the same release. I
actually think having them both marked as stable is going to create a
bit of a confusing situation as is. If we're going to go this way, then
I'd mark 2.0 as "current" and 1.2 as "legacy" (and avoid the whole
stability issue). 3.0 would obviously be "development."
o In thinking about it more, it may make more sense to invert the
version order for the documentation. Right now, the development
version is the first accessible one, although we should be promoting
the stable release for general use.
Current ordering was actually my idea :-) The point was mainly to show
things in chronological order, newest first... Maybe we can break dev
release out of it, and strip the "stable" label (it should be
implied), but keep the rest in order:
* Version 2.0
* Version 1.2
* Development Release (Version 3.0)
+1
Once 3.0 goes Beta, the menu will look like this, to encourage users
to try the Beta:
* Version 3.0 (Beta)
* Version 2.0
* Version 1.2
-0. The people that want to run the beta will run it anyway. I think
we should still be promoting 2.0 as the version people should be using
for production work.
o I'm thinking it may be worthwhile to have a whole section dedicated
to support. This would have links to FAQs, commercial support,
mailing lists, and what not.
I am +1 on support. But as a result many links such as mailing lists
and bug tracker would fall into multiple categories (support and
collaboration)... What anyone's thoughts on that?
I see no problem, other than potential clutter, with having one link in
multiple places. The items don't necessarily fall into a clean
hierarchy. I would rather have the main sections meet common use cases
than to use some arbitrary grouping.
Off the top of my head, I see the following: new user, likely seeking
information about the project; novice user, likely seeking support
channels and documentation; experienced user, likely seeking
documentation and bug/issue tracker. Obviously, these are
simplifications, but I think we should try to make the site as usable as
possible for each group.
o "Contributors" seems like an informative topic and may be better
placed under "About" rather than "Collaboration."
o I still have mixed feelings on the main content. It's definitely
improved, but for logical flow, it would seem to me that the modeler
would be better placed right after the description of what Cayenne.
Basically you'd go from what we are to what we can offer. Throwing
news in the middle breaks that flow and makes the modeler section
seem like it's floating in no man's land. On the other hand, pushing
news to the bottom obviously makes it harder to view.
Or maybe move the news on top - or to the right side???
Here, I can't offer much more. I'm -1 on moving the news to the top,
because it creates a weird order for anyone unfamiliar with the project
(and let's face it, there's a lot of people unfamiliar with it). I'm
mixed on the right-hand-side, because then the primary content will get
squished into something ridiculously small. I'm almost inclined to
suggest moving the news to a completely separate page, linked to on the
main one. This is actually what we did for the recent Servprise page
upgrade, just to avoid clutter on the main page *shrug*
--
Kevin
