On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 12:23 PM, janI <j...@apache.org> wrote: > On 19 December 2012 18:13, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: > >> cc'ing the marketing list, since we have some recent volunteers who >> said they had web design skills. >> >> We have two websites for the project: >> >> 1) A public-facing website at http://www.openoffice.org >> >> 2) A project-facing website at http://openoffice.apache.org >> >> In practice the distinction is not always clear. There are many links >> that cross from one website to another. For example, a user starting >> at http://www.openoffice.org/ and clicking the "I want to Participate >> in OpenOffice" ends on on this project page here: >> http://openoffice.apache.org/get-involved.html. >> >> The websites have a similar look, but they differ in many small ways, >> and the cumulative effect of these differences is discordant (IMHO). >> > Would it not be more efficient just to have one website, with e.g. a > project corner, I for one tend to get confused when I search information ? >
The www.openoffice.org website is the legacy website, the one that OpenOffice has had for over a decade. But it is also a convention at Apache for all projects to have a website as a subdomain of apache,org. So we also have openoffice.apache,org. When we first moved to Apache there was a long, hard period of migration for website and wiki and forums and bugzilla, etc. During that time it was essential that we had some stability, so we could coordinate. So having a stable website and CWiki and mailing lists at Apache was great, since that allowed us some downtime during the migration of the legacy website and services. But it might make more sense now to get the website and wiki consolidated into one location rather than maintain these two different websites. We only have 40 or so pages on openoffice.apache.org, so migration would not be too painful. In any case, something to consider... >> >> To draw out the difference, I made two identical test pages that >> illustrate how the different style sheets treat common HTML >> constructs, and differences in page headers/footers: >> >> See: >> >> http://openoffice.apache.org/style-test.html >> >> and >> >> http://www.openoffice.org/style-test.html >> > If we need two, it would be real nice (as you suggest) that the layout is > identical. > > >> >> Note, for example, how our tagline differs between the pages. Also, >> the default font size on the openoffice.org is smaller than on >> openoffice.apache.org. IMHO this is too small for default text. >> >> There are other things that are common between the two sites, but >> perhaps are non-optimal, like: >> >> 1) We're really not distinguishing blockquotes well. We're just >> indenting. Maybe we can add a left-aligned vertical bar? >> > +1 > >> >> 2) The yellow background of the <pre> block is a bit extreme. Maybe >> something more subtle? >> > +1 +++ > >> >> 3) The hierarchy of headers only deals with H1 and H2. >> > There is a need for more levels, and maybe skip H1 and thereby making it > easier to transfer to/from mwiki. > Could you explain what you mean here? MWiki doesn't use H1? -Rob >> >> >> I'm willing to help here, on integration of new stylesheets, getting >> stuff checked in, etc. But I have neither the taste nor the talent to >> design a good looking set of styles. Trust me, you do not want be to >> do design work. So I'm hoping that someone reading this can volunteer >> to take the lead in proposing a good, modern, professional set of >> styles that we can use across both websites. >> > That makes two of a kind, I think you need to have a special touch to be a > good designer. > > Jan. > >> >> Thanks! >> >> -Rob >>
