Those are all from me. I am all for high-quality user-facing resources, and that was the intention. I wasn't aware that there was access to UX skills, and didn't intend to do anything outside of protocol.
Q1: Would you like me to perform the changes you've described below? Q2: I did add a step to http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CuttingReleases , was that the wrong place? Q3: In the future if I have ideas of similar magnitude for the website, those should be floated in a Jira item first? For full disclosure, I made other changes to the website over time, including a reference to the issues mailing list, added a paragraph regarding the docs, added links to the completed CLAs, added link to the download archive, etc. So please sanity check the whole page to see if there is anything additional outside of expectations. I'm cool with nitpicking, I want the user experience to be really good. -- Marcel Kinard On Feb 22, 2013, at 6:50 PM, Michael Brooks <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > > TLDR; Please avoid drive-by updates without documentation and/or discussion. > > I feel like a nitpicker, but this is what leads to broken links and > low-quality user-facing resources. > > 1. Recently, there was a commit that reworded "Documentation" to "Cordova > Documentation" > - I feel that mentioning "Cordova" is unnecessary. > - I spoke with our UX team member and he agrees, summarizing the > reasoning as: > - "Always remove redundancy." > - I would like to change the wording back to "Documentation." > > 2. Recently, there was a commit that moved "Documentation" from the > "Development" category to "General" > - Again, I think this is incorrect. > - The Documentation is targeted at Cordova developers. > - The "General" is a catch all bucket. > - Our UX team member summarized this as: > - "Always lean towards specificity or generality." > - I would like to move Documentation back under "Development" > > 3. Recently, there was a commit that updated the Documentation link from " > http://docs.cordova.io"; to "http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/2.4.0/"; > - I understand why we may want to use the official URL. > - However, the documentation is linked in multiple places meaning each > release we need to remember to update every mention of the documentation. > - Additionally, the commit did not update the README.md's "How to > updating the docs" section with the new steps. > - I'm fine keeping the URL as the official one, but please.... update > the README.md. > > Let me know if you in agreement or against each of the points. > > Thanks, > Michael
