It's very pretty and "Web 2.0"-ish. Nice work from that point of view.
However, it's not awfully functional. I hate to criticise something that's
obviously had such a lot of effort put into it, but even though it's very
shiny at the moment it feels too much like a splash screen, and those are
generally acknowledged to be a bad idea. People do go to web sites for the
content, not just the splash screen. Making me click a "take me to the site"
button is annoying. That Igor feels he needs a "take me to the real web
site" checkbox is a really bad sign.
So I guess we need to work out what the site is for - i.e. how people use
it. It'd be interesting to get some Google analytics or similar on it so we
can figure this out.
Hypotheses:
1) First-time users:
- Want to know what it is and how it differs from x, y and z.
- Want to see some example code to see for themselves if the basic
concept sucks or not.
- Want a quickstart guide and a link to the docs.
- Want to download it.
2) Returning (but beginner) users:
- Trying to find documentation.
- Trying to find mailing lists?
- ???
3) Seasoned users:
- Use it as a jumping-off point to JIRA, wiki, etc.?
- ???
So it's time for the users to speak up, I guess. How do you use
wicket.apache.org? How would you like to use it? Do we have a bunch of stuff
on there at the moment that's completely redundant/never used?
Do we want to make it into a community site so people who are
intermediate/advanced users actually come back to the site often? Should we
be writing a blog on there that links to mailing list articles and blog
posts about Wicket? Is there any advantage to making a sticky site like
that? Should we accept that the web site is pretty much only for raw
beginners, in which case we should simplify things appropriately? Input is
welcome - I don't have good answers to these questions.
Regarding the proposed design, I don't like that there's a really obvious
"get wicket" button, but also a link to that in the drop-downs. Seems
confusing/redundant - which should I be clicking on? I end up looking at the
URLs in the status bar on mouseover and deciding they're the same, takes me
time, sucks.
I'm sorry, but I also don't like that most of the links are hidden in the
drop-downs. I know it makes the page look cleaner, but it's akin to "mystery
meat navigation" - you shouldn't have to hover over stuff to work out what
it is, as you then end up having to go look at each of the hot-spots in turn
with your mouse to work out what the heck is actually on the site. Maybe we
need to rethink the navigation sections rather than trying to hide them.
Additionally, the download button has the versions and dates embedded
graphically which will complicate the release process unless we can somehow
automate producing them. Can't we just use text instead?
Regards,
Al
On 06/01/2008, C. Bergström <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > [ ] Yes, make "Rising Wicket" the front page of our Apache Wicket site
> > [ ] Not yet, change .... and then make it the front page
> > [x] No. This will make a great landing page for those wanting to
> download/get started using wicket, but needs content/navigation
> changes/improvements to be a home page.
>
> non-binding vote. I could nit-pick this a lot, but I don't think that's
> polite as this is *VERY* nice work. We're just trying to put it in the
> wrong place imho.
>
> I'm going to take a guess that the target audience for wicket site
> visitors will want:
>
> 1) How to get started/downloads
> 2) Examples
> 3) Further Help
> 4) General information on what Wicket is/does (or the 5 W's)
>
> This page does one of those really well and neglects the other goals.
>
>
> Other points
>
> 1) How well will the design incorporate into the rest of the site
> a. If we do plan to make it site wide how will it look when you
> start
> adding more content pushing the bottom of the page down. (I should just
> check this before asking I know)
> b. bread crumbs can be nice for usability and site navigation..
>
> 2) Does anyone think the rising sun is annoying? (I personally don't
> have an opinion) If we wanted to have some sort of animation in our
> site I'd opt for something more like the way mootools.net does it and
> just have the menu effect.
>
> 3) What will Googlebot's vote on our site be? We're really removing a
> lot of content and the site will effectively be a series of links, two
> big images and a paragraph.
>
> I generally agree with http://www.useit.com/ and those with an interest
> in the content/design/navigation/usability should at least have a glance
> there.
>
> The original issue was the current design was "Good looking, but dull."
> However, we should take careful consideration into how to reach that
> goal.. Possibly a flash ad for the new release of 1.3 with a nice
> static fallback image.. or possibly other things which I could suggest
> in another email on the reference
>
> *IF* this vote does end in a yes result. I'd be very interested in a
> comparison between old and new for:
>
> 1) Changes to click patterns
> 2) How long people stay on the site
> 3) If we lose/gain ranking on keywords. (Which at some point we should
> start to look into SEO and other simple 'tactics' to increase our
> exposure)
>
>
> We should also at some point consider internationalizing/localizing the
> site as our framework *does* handle this quite nice. IOW.. start eating
> our own dogfood as the expression goes.
>
> Once again I *do* like this. I just would like to see it as a dedicated
> landing page for those articles pointing to getting people started with
> wicket 1.3. Personally, I also think the font for 'wicket' being used
> is very pleasing/readable. For some true unbiased professional
> feedback/voting we should submit it to WSG [1] list.
>
> Cheers,
>
> ./C
>
> [1] http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/
>
>
