>> Visual >> ------------------------------ >> - Our identity is using violet, white, gray and black now -- the >> blue, green and patterned background are not a major part of our >> current identity as of 0.2, and will not be used at all for 0.3 > > Here is a gratuitous comment: patterned background is nice, may be we > could reuse it future versions of Nesedah ;-)
We'll see ;) >> - Large images (such as screenshots) overflow the page's edges >> - The large central flower image, while attractive, provides no >> functional information and becomes quickly redundant on subpages > > I agree, but I would very much appreciate to keep the image on the > home page. Yes, I agree. Some large image on the home page is a good way to get people interested. I'd rather the image be something relevant to the system, though (some sort of screenshot or something). >> I know most people are comfortable with Mediawiki based on >> conversations we've had before, but I'm wondering if using >> something else wouldn't be better. In the past I've proposed >> WordPress, but Drupal looks like it might be a good long-term >> solution also/instead. I'm wondering if anyone has any other >> suggestions about what to do with the site, or if there are any >> major objections to moving to something drastically different in >> the process of building 0.3. > > I'm very open to any solutions similar to Mediawiki, but I don't know > a lot about CMS and wikis. I initially picked Mediawiki because it > had many features, was well supported and documented. It was also > widely used and easier to set up than many other wikis. David and I may have come up with a good solution... I need to experiment a bit more though. >> I have some proposals for a new site hierarchy, which I've outlined >> below -- if no one has any objections to it, I'd like us to move to >> something that is more closely in line with this structure, >> regardless of what underlying technical solution we use. A clean >> URL hierarchy will help us keep new content focused and near other >> relevant content. It will be important to add redirects >> into .htaccess so that old links are redirected to the proper >> location. This won't be easy as it'll have to all be done by hand, >> but it needs to happen to make sure people are ending up in >> (approximately) the right location. >> >> Home etoile-project.org >> - News /news (blogs, press, feeds) > > ok, but I think important News must be replicated on the home page > itself. Yes. There will always be some sort of news on the home page. The / news section is to see all the older news. >> - Etoile /etoile -> /etoile/$version (overview) > > Not really clear… I suppose this replaces About. Yes. >> - Download /download -> /etoile/$version/download >> (should also provide a link to /more) >> - Features /features -> /etoile/$version/features > > Here we surely need a Documentation section in addition to Features. > I suppose Features would be a quick overview of Étoilé as whole and > also of each key component. Documentation would be an area dedicated > to User Guides and Manuals. It should also encompass Install Guide. I envisioned User Guides/Manuals/Installation being under the Support section. But now that I think about it, perhaps it would be better to have at the top level a "Getting Started" section with all that kind of stuff, written with end-users in mind. >> - Support /support (contact, bug submission, etc) >> - Get More /more (apps, add-ons, etc) >> - For Developers /dev -> dev.etoile-project.org >> - Getting Started dev.etoile-project.org/start >> - Installation dev.etoile-project.org/install >> - Documentation dev.etoile-project.org/docs (needs to allow for >> user comments) > > Here is a wish… I would like to have Frameworks documentation > reachable in no more than 2 or 3 clicks. For examples, on gnustep.org > or apple.com, frameworks documentation takes too much time to find in > my personal taste. Yep -- should be workable: 1) On etoile-project.org click on "For Developers" 2) Once there, click on "Documentation" 3) Find the framework you want. Or, if they know about dev.etoile-project.org, then they can skip step one. >> - Status dev.etoile-project.org/status (CIA feed) > > What about Development Status: roadmap, release strategy and progress/ > status of stable and trunk. Yeah -- I see all that stuff showing up on the Status page. > You forget the Team section ;-) Yep -- we'll have a Team or People or similar section. And just to make sure everyone's on the same page: Our audience, as of now, is developers. However, assuming things go as planned, we'll get a much larger audience of non-technical users who are interested in just _using_ the system, not _developing_ for it. Thus, I see the site as having two "faces": one for end-users and one for developers/potential contributors. The end-user site is accessed via etoile-project.org. The developer site is accessed via dev.etoile-project.org (which developers are redirected to via etoile- project.org/dev). In general, if it means having to use the terminal at all, it should be on the dev site: svn, building the code, Objective-C, app development, api documentation, etc... stuff that regular users are probably never going to have to touch. The extent to which the interests of regular users will overlap with those things will be for: 1) Learning how to grab and burn an ISO 2) Walking through an automated install process (think re-installing OS X or Ubuntu or NeXTSTEP) 3) Learning about what we have planned for the next version (similar to roadmap, but higher level and shinier) Anything more technical than that on the main site and we've lost them because we're perceived as being "too hard". It seems like, in general, you agree, Quentin... I just want to make sure everyone understands how I'm envisioning the site working. :) J. _______________________________________________ Etoile-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-discuss
