I agree with a lot of what you are saying. The jQuery site, though a useful tool is a little dull and as you say doesn't tell you how "fresh" things are.
I think a leaf could be taken out of what some other communities on the web do and look at making the jQuery homepage more like a community hub, and less like a "this is jQuery" page. A few additional ideas to what I had before: Have a "today" box telling you all the freshest information such as current build of jQuery, latest/updated plugins, links to tutorials for beginners on the front page, clearer nacvigation. Tane http://digitalspaghetti.me.uk On 12/7/06, Solid Source <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Of particular importance to JQuery I believe is finding a way to help > developers understand VERY OBVIOUSLY that this is not another > Prototype/Dojo///, but rather a very different way to address the issue of > DOM interaction in a concise not overly verbose manner. I have used every > major(and minor for that matter) lib out there for various projects/apps and > I am absolutely committed to JQuery after all my experimenting. > > You all know why ... :) > > The only reason it took so long for me to convert was that I saw JQuery > initially as just another lib. JQuery was less publicized at the time and > that made for easy oversight of it's true value. > > If you/we find a way to make it obvious at first glance(wherever the first > glance lives) what we have here is special in a way you haven't experienced > yet in your libquest(s), along with a very concise and simple(layman's > terms) why, I feel this would be a huge benefit. > > So I pointed out a problem so here's a few ideas/solutions: > > 1. Change the slogan "New Wave Javascript" to something more along the lines > of explaining what it does or how it does it rather than what it is. > Everyone thinks they are new wave right? :) > > 2. The jquery.com homepage has this text as the first paragraph at the top, > "jQuery is a new type of Javascript library. It is not a huge, bloated > framework promising the best in AJAX - nor is it just a set of needlessly > complex enhancements - jQuery is designed to change the way that you write > Javascript.". Along with the first section heading, "What is jQuery?". > > Why did this not sink in for me the first few times I visited the site? I'll > choose some libraries that I have used in the past, before converting, and > break out their home pages ... > 1. dojo: "Dojo is the Open Source JavaScript toolkit that makes professional > web development better, easier, and faster." > 2. prototype: "Prototype is a JavaScript framework that aims to ease > development of dynamic web applications" > 3. scriptaculous/proto: "script.aculo.us provides you with easy-to-use, > cross-browser user interface JavaScript libraries to make your web sites and > web applications fly." > 4. mochikit: "Makes JavaScript suck less." - I love this one > 5. rico: "An open-source JavaScript library for creating rich internet > applications. Rico provides full AJAX support, drag and drop management and > a cinematic effects library." > > commonalities: they all make JavaScript development better, easier, and > faster of course :). This was what stuck everytime I crawled the web for a > new library, so I was looking unconsciously for something to stand out other > than the obvious. > > I think the JQuery homepage explanation is very honest, but it "sounded" > like it was going to make my development better, easier, and faster. I > didn't want to spend the time(I hit JQuery after proto,script,mochi,rico) to > try yet another lib, especially if it is less known - probably meaning rel. > cycles are low, community is small, plug ins obsolete. I might have taken > the time if I had somehow "got it" without having to dig around a commit a > lot of time. So ... long winded point comes ... if the homepage featured > very little text describing JQuery, and a lot more functional concise > examples, and talk of community, plugins, etc ... I think the segways from > what do I need, to hey that looks nice, to let me try that with my problem, > to why didn't I start using this sooner mean new JQuery users faster. > > closing example: JQuery homepage-marketing landing page > > JQuery - "some catchy, maybe slightly off topic phrase" - remember Mochi - > "Makes JavaScript suck less." > > example > brief expl. 1 $() method, maybe - why is this different than prototype? > > brief how > dom manipulation example 1 - link to demos > > brief how > effects example 1 - link to demos > > brief how > dom manipulation example 2 - link to demos > > - start hitting the what and whys of JQ > > brief how > .get() - .post() - .load() example 1 - link to demos > > ... > > ... > > - really get into the what and whys of JQ > > Thinking out loud here :). > > > > > thumblewend wrote: > > > > Hi Rey, > > This is slightly off-topic of me but I'm not sure how else to get in > > contact with you. I just want you to know that I replied to your > > direct email a few weeks ago (regarding the case study), but I think > > my email didn't get past your junk filter. Please advise if you are > > still interested, and maybe add my email to your address book so I > > get through to you. > > Sorry for this email everyone else, please forgive me. > > > > Joel Birch. > > > > On 08/12/2006, at 12:45 AM, Rey Bango wrote: > > > >> Guys, some of you may know of my efforts to get jQuery more exposure. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > jQuery mailing list > > discuss@jquery.com > > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > > > > > > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Efforts-to-Convert-Folks-to-jQuery-tf2774482.html#a7744856 > Sent from the JQuery mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > > _______________________________________________ > jQuery mailing list > discuss@jquery.com > http://jquery.com/discuss/ > _______________________________________________ jQuery mailing list discuss@jquery.com http://jquery.com/discuss/
