You might find my previous documentation projects useful:
https://github.com/ethanc8/NewDocumentation-Tutorials
I might try making some prototype websites based on PyTorch's website.
They have a similar issue in that they need to manage manuals and API
docs for many different websites, but obviously PyTorch doesn't also
have the issue of providing parts of a desktop environment or being
widely used by end-users who need to configure it for the apps that
depend on PyTorch to integrate with their system. But I think PyTorch's
website design can be a good reference for us.
On 7/11/24 08:12, Riccardo Mottola wrote:
Hi,
Richard Frith-Macdonald wrote:
Well, Damianos points out that GNUstep is just a framework for
developers.
I think the view is more nuanced than the word 'just' suggests.
you are correct. At first, I had a very bad and harsh reaction at the
slides, but this comment is perfect.
Most premises found in the slides are true, but they are
over-simplified and taken to the only starting points driving to - in
my opinion - limiting and drastic conclusions
Do we all agree on that?
Of course not .... but there's a clear majority who agree that our
primary focus is a developer framework, and that it makes sense to
present it that way.
Having looked at Damianos's presentation, I think it seems a pretty
good summary. Even the idea of a new logo (though I like the
existing one), makes sense.
I oppose a new logo for gnustep - it is nice, recognizable and good.
However we might find a way to distinguish "core" stuff from the rest,
in terms of working and perhaps visual recognition. I don't know yet
the boundaries... but e.g a summary like apple has "Foundation"
"Cocoa" and "Xcode" all-catch words for a variety of stuff inside.
We have core frameworks, dev apps, non-core frameworks, etc etc... all
which are part of GNUstep.
Referring e.g. referring to "gui" and "back" is useful for us, but
confusing for most end-users.
I have no problem with a website that's clearly driven by a tight
focus on the development framework, because that still allows for a
prominent link to a second site concentrating on a reference
implementation, since it's a simple point to make that there's a
synergy to multiple applications built with the same framework.
Having two distinct websites makes a lot of sense to me.
I am more interested in the application part and I don't think two
websites go for that, if not that we decide to have a full desktop,
which we current don't have (and fine so, in my opinion). However we
have apps, tools extra-frameworks. I don't think it is a good idea to
split things in N websites.
The current website has a quite deep distinction between "user" and
"developer in organization terms. It is not so apparent because not
all content was changed to emphasize that. Paradoxically, it actually
the developer part which is very lacking. After having culled "old
content"... it just contains some apps and frameworks and a bit of
documentation. There is no coherence nor narrative.
Some things practically exist only as downloads. I have tried some
arbitrary grouping in "Core System" "Libraries" and "Development
applications" but it is incomplete and not official and generic in
working, I just did it to get some structure where it was missing.
About having one or two sites, one site with two sub-parts, just
sections, about the naming of the parts, we should reason (maybe some
POCs), but careful not to reduce the GNUstep project to a tiny part of
it.
Riccardo
