Gav.... wrote:
-----Original Message-----
From: David Crossley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, 23 August 2006 3:09 PM
To: dev@forrest.apache.org
Subject: Re: [RT] A new Forrest implementation?
Ross Gardler wrote:
David Crossley wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
The fact is that they do use Forrest for this. We encourage it with our
home page too.
We probably need to change our home page.
We have heard from a couple of users who started with Forrest this way,
attracted by the promise that it is simple to extend then they
discovered it was not and lost interest.
One point that i was trying to make, is that we might
need to re-assess who is our target. I, for one, am here
to build a project that handles semi-advanced to advanced
publishing needs. I don't want to appeal to users who
only want "simple websites", especially ones who cannot
be bothered to explore beyond the basics.
I understand your point, and if we are talking about users who *only*
see Forrest as a web generation tool then I agree. However, my comment
refers to a different type of user that we have heard from:
"We have heard from a couple of users who started with Forrest this way,
attracted by the promise that it is simple to extend then they
discovered it was not and lost interest."
Note that they are *attracted* by the fact it is "simple" to extend.
They play around and love that they can quickly create a website with
content form different sources - this is what gets them hooked. The
problem is that they often slip the hook when they move to the next
stage of doing something non-trivial.
I know we have heard from a few people who have stayed on the hook, but
we have also had two users describing exactly why they feel they are
no longer hooked. How many like this are we not hearing from because
they are completely unhooked and have unsubscribed the list?
I can only give anecdotal evidence (as can any of us), but my experience
says there *many* users like this. In fact, I have only ever seen one
contribution from one of my clients that have accepted a Forrest based
solution from me. This is a very poor conversion rate from user to
developer.
A great many more of my clients don't accept a Forrest solution because
of the problems I have highlighted in this RT. SO many fall into this
category that I don't even bother pitching it any more.
If others have anecdotal evidence to support or contradict my
conclusions we need to hear from you. It may be anecdotal, but it gives
us some grounding to work with.
How and who we end up targeting, should not sway from the goal of making
forrest an easier package to use as well as ease of development.
+1
Ross
