Gervase Markham wrote:
>...
> > * be more attractive as the default home page for Mozilla users
>
> Ooh, controversial :-) I'd question that this is a requirement. This
> implies that the front page of www.mozilla.org should be some sort of
> portal (because most people's start pages are) and I don't think we
> want to go there at all.
No, it doesn't, and we don't.
It's just that Mozilla Navigator is this amazingly standards-compliant
browser, with support for HTML 4.0, and CSS1, and a lot of CSS2, and the
DOM, and all that funky stuff. And when people start it up for the first
time (modulo bug 61121) ... they get presented with
<http://mozilla.org/>, the sort of page which Todd Fahrner refers to as
a `1996-99-era GIF-and-table HTML confection'. To be blunt, it smells.
mozilla.org needs to be more attractive, and it needs to show off
Mozilla's standards support a bit more. Sure, Mozilla testers (except
the ones who regularly test nightlies, and have to trash corrupted
profiles every week or so as a result) are going to change their home
page five minutes after they start up, but Mozilla should still make a
good impression by showing a nice page the first time.
I have prototyped the page design on
<http://critique.net.nz/project/mozilla.org/mozilla-org.jpg> using CSS,
degrading extremely nicely to vanilla HTML for those browsers which have
CSS disabled/unsupported. And the layout resizes and rearranges itself
to work properly whether you're on a workstation or a cellphone. No
TABLEs required.
> > * get involved
> > - quality assurance
> > o how to report bugs
> > o how to find duplicates
>
> Why is QA under "get involved" yet the stuff about contributing code
> is not?
Contributing code *is* under "get involved".
|...
| * get involved
| - quality assurance
| o how to report bugs
| o how to find duplicates
| - advocacy guides
| - *** hacking ***
| o downloading source
| o getting CVS access
| o building the Lizard
>...
> > - sponsorship
>
> <raises eyebrows>
Dawn Endico wrote (by e-mail):
|
| we need a credits page for corporate contributors
| (netscape, sourceforge, bluemartini, meer.net)
And I don't see what's wrong with that. The Mozilla Organization has
companies which donate build machines, servers, bandwidth etc. These
companies deserve recognition.
> > * translation bar (for showing translations of current page)
>
> Surely this is a browser or a webserver, not a website function?
> Either we get the server to detect the browser language and serve up
> the correct content if available (the best solution)
Yes, but we still need to show the available translations for each page,
because the site (like the rest of the project) is a volunteer effort.
So (for example) someone who is fluent in Japanese, but who prefers to
read Web pages (including mozilla.org docs) in English, can see `oh!
there's no Japanese version of this page! I could translate it for
them ...'
> or we let them
> use a pulldown to use an external translation tool.
Mechanical translations (especially of technical docs, such as those on
mozilla.org) will probably not be as good as human ones for another ten
years, at least.
> > * aesthetics of site should change every ~12 months
>
> Any particular reason?
To keep it looking fresh. All that would be required would be tweaking
the style sheets.
> > * URL as UI <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/990321.html>
>
> Yes and no. Often URLs are quoted, in News or IRC, and so need to
> provide some summary of what they are about. For example, I much
> prefer http://mozilla.org/bugzilla/guide/tips.html to e.g.
> http://www.cnet.com/100,2342,3243.4334.5.html or whatever it is they
> do.
>
> So, URLs have to have some UI (Useful Information) component, even if
> you aren't expected to use them as UI (User Interface.)
I see all `yes' there, I don't see any `no'. You're exactly right. Being
useful is a large part of being usable.
> > - clear URL hierarchy (avoid meaningless levels like `docs/')
>
> I still maintain that there are documents, like The Bugzilla Manual,
> which are definitely "docs" and documents, such as the download page,
> which are not. It's true, in the end everything is a "document", but
> that's not what a docs directory means. It stands for "documentation"
> :-) And I think it's a meaningful distinction.
>...
So where would you draw the line on these (hypothetical) documents about
which are `docs' and which are not:
* Bugzilla Manual
* Bugzilla FAQ
* Bugzilla version history and changelog
* Bugzilla release notes
* Bugzilla download instructions
* Bugzilla download page
`Docs' is just a contraction of the word `documents'.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
NB: I will be offline from December 28 to January 8
