Hi William, *, On Nov 8, 2007 6:10 AM, William Case <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I have read > through the submissions made since September on this list and am not > sure if I am too late or not.
Well, for the current (as it is available) now design, you're late All was discussed on either [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailinglist or on the sc40 Mailinglist it was about march/April 2005 IIRC > I have looked for and been unable to find: > > 1) A listing of research done by OOo showing the best types of interface > with site users that relates to the sites objectives; Well "research" is a fancy term.. not sure what you mean with interface either. The site is limited to regular html+css+some javascript, but doesn't provide any server-side scripting or similar.. > 2) A list of the sites objectives; Well, again "site" is relative - do you mean the frontpage or the site as a whole? The frontpage is meant as a page to guide users to the different sections they might need. Users should not need to hunt for links in big lists of links to spot the one they might be interested in. While I think we pretty much reached that goal, unfortunately the pages after the frontpage sometimes fall behind. And the objective of the whole site of course is to provide all the info the user might want... > 3) A discussion of the above 1) & 2); In the mailinglists mentioned above > 4) A decision process for major changes; In the mailiing lists mentioned above. The changes were: strip the frontpage, before it was full of textual content, with no clear structure. It was reduced to meet the main user-groups agreed at that time (user who just wants do download, user who looks for support, user who wants to know more/general info, users who look for support/help/ information in their native language, developers or other contributors who want to take part in the community.) Mayor changes have been limited to those occasions where the site infrastructure software was upgraded and when we had a staging server to play with. > 5) A list of problems with the site that have been gathered from various > sources Not sure what that means. The problems basically is that not all of the site offers easy navigation, and that it is hard to keep up, to not let pages just sit there and get outdated. Unfortunately this is what did happen and still happens at various places. > 6) Definition of intended/expected users: ie. Explorers; First time > Downloaders; Upgraders; Developers; Participants etc. It seems I don't really understand your questions, since they all mean more or less the same to me. > 7) I have seen no strategies on how to accommodate those various users > of the site; See above basically. I don't really see why you did put this into seperate questions, those cannot be answered one by one, without the other. The strategies have been mentioned above already: The main aim is to provide clear navigation paths This summarizes it good enough I guess. Main means to reach that goal are to reduce the amount of content on a given page, use of icons or other graphical elements. Avoid duplication of information. > "I have been on the OOo users list for some two years and using OOo for > as long. I went to the www.openoffice.org site just to see why there is > so much confusion for newbies (OOo beginners). > [...] > At www.openoffice.org I found: > > 1) the so-called download button didn't look like a button; Come-on, does it really matter whether it looks like a real button? Obviously it catched your attention, that is enough. You don't refuse to click on hyperlinks when they are not put onto a button, aren't you? You still click an image, even when it is flat, do you? > 2) the support tab (page) was confusing, giving far too many unnecessary > choices; See the point mentioned above. People always say the frontpage sucks, when they really mean the following pages don't keep up. :-( > 3) no tips; Tips for what? > 4) no explanation of the difference between downloading and installing; Come on? Why would you need an explanation for this? > 5) no reassurances as a newcomer proceeds; Again I don't get your point/don't understand it. Please try to give some examples to explain. > 6) even finding this Discussion mailing list was filled with FUD. FUD? Again, please explain. > 7) The best ( and it lacked appeal ) "Sales Page" was buried two links > in under the link "fully-featured office suite". No new comer would > find it. > 8) The absence of marketing words that are known to work universally a) > NEW b) IMPROVED c) FREE d) TIME LIMITED. They could be used to > overcome FUD. > etc. etc. Buzzwords could help to overcome FUD? That would be a new concept to me... > No Excitement -- not even on one page !!! > > Never did find the questions email site that inserts "YOU MUST GIVE A > SUMMARY HERE". I have no idea where people with problems are finding > that site. Well, the Support site has various links, there is FAQs and other documentation and I'm sure one of those pages does have it. But does that mean it needs to be plastered right in front of any visitor? IMHO no, the Support page does mention the mailinglist(s) and how you go on from there is your own decision. But as you might have read in other, newer mails in the archives, there is now a discussion on a redesign... ciao Christian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
