Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
o We should probably have the 1.1 documentation on the site. This
could be marked as a legacy release. 1.2 is still fairly young,
however, so we should make it easy for those still using 1.1 to get
appropriate support.
Hands up anyone using 1.1... thought so... :-)
If people want 1.1, it is trivial to add one more line.
I know I've been expounding usability for current users, but this one is
actually a matter of perception. We want to create the feeling that we
support older releases, which is an important feature. The Tapestry
community has had a lot of in-fighting lately, because each new release
seems to break everything with the previous one. Long-term support is
something people need to consider when choosing a product for a
project. Neither 1.2 nor 2.0 are all that old. So, we either look like
we don't support older versions or that we're a newish project. I don't
believe either is an adequate representation of the project. In either
event, Andrus has chimed in with his suggestions.
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.
I think the 'stable' wording makes that clear.
Never underestimate how little people will read.
Fact is that right now in Cayenne development, most people should be
looking at 3.0 to understand what is going on. Later as the project
development slows down and more people are just using it without
getting involved in the project, I'd agree that development type
things could become much less prominent. But I think we should make a
big deal of the new 3.0 docs for instance - lots of interesting
information there.
Correct, but 3.0 is going through a lot of changes. It is not
recommended for production use. So, I think it's important to show
people what's coming and even let others test the waters. But, it
should not be what we're promoting for production work.
There is a very fine line between support and documentation then. I'd
not want to start mixing the two up. FAQ is documentation, but also
support.
Eh, I don't necessarily agree. No one writes a FAQ until they've had to
field the question a few times through a support channel. Otherwise, it
wouldn't be a FAQ. So, it's documentation in the sense that it's
written, but I think it clearly is support. There's probably little
value in arguing over it though.
I think it is impossible to get three people to agree on the best
classification system. However, as long as we have a system that makes
sense and once you've read the navigation once or twice you
instinctively can find things, then it will work OK.
We really want to have a system that allows a user to find what he needs
on the first pass. I'll refer to the Tapestry project again. With T4,
they completely redid the Web page, making it ridiculously difficult to
find information. Things were laid out very oddly and hidden under
collapsible sections. Even after knowing what was where, it was
cumbersome to use. Now, I'm not suggesting we're anywhere close to that
-- the navigation is quite good actually -- but I wouldn't rely on
people just becoming accustomed to it either. I think organization by
user type would be our best bet, as outlined elsewhere in this thread.
Really, right now we have exactly one item that belongs in 'support'
and nowhere else. We could pinch mailing lists and put them there too,
so we will have two items, but only by removing mailing lists from
collaboration where they belong.
Not necessarily. I'm unaware of any rule that states you can't have
multiple links to the same item in different places ;-)
o "Contributors" seems like an informative topic and may be better
placed under "About" rather than "Collaboration."
Yet, by that criterion everything is 'about' Cayenne. I wanted to
unclutter the About section as much as possible since that is where
people start. Contributors (while crucial to the project) are of
secondary consideration to a new visitor.
Perhaps not "About", but I wouldn't put it under "Collaboration." Every
other item under that section is interactive in one way or another. A
list of contributors is not, however.
I hear what you are saying, but I can't see that either of your
proposals is better. I don't want news to disappear down the bottom,
but I think the site needs to start with the 'what is cayenne'
paragraphs.
I really don't think it is so bad as is, you'll get used to it.... :-)
Heh, I'm less concerned about me and more concerned about casual users.
The people that are interested in learning a bit about Cayenne. Given
that I can't offer much more than I have in other messages in this
thread, however, I'll step aside on this one -- at least until I think
of something :-P
--
Kevin
Kevin Menard
Servprise International, Inc.
"Remote reboot without pulling the plug" -- http://www.servprise.com
