Gervase Markham wrote:
>...
> > <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.
>
> Oh, indeed. Bugzilla's playing up again, so I can't look at your bug,
> but I would contest the assertion that www.mozilla.org/ needs to be
> the default start page at all. As long as we maintain its other aims,
> it will always be a bad start page for a browser.
It's not mozilla.org's job to provide a portal-like start page for
Mozilla Navigator. It's mozilla.org's job to attract (and coordinate)
developers. And if we can use the default home page as part of doing
that, that's good.
An attractive <http://mozilla.org/>, which makes it easy for visitors to
find ways to contribute to Mozilla, will help turn many of those Mozilla
end users (the people who don't use Mozilla builds for testing, the
people who actually use them for Web browsing and e-mail, the people who
Ben Bucksch pretends doesn't exist) from passive users into Mozilla
contributors.
>...
> > I have prototyped the page design on
> > <http://critique.net.nz/project/mozilla.org/mozilla-org.jpg> using
> > CSS,
>
> I don't seem to be able to reach this. My browser just sits there
> "Contacting critique.net.nz..."
Worksforme.
>...
> > Contributing code *is* under "get involved".
>
> I was talking about your "developer info" section. Most of the stuff
> under /quality now is directly analogous to that.
`Developer info' is for when you're already involved. It would include
testcases, testing tools, etc for QA people, linked from the relevant
functional and UI specs for the programming people.
>...
> Yes, but then why isn't _everything_ under "get involved"? After all,
> everything we do is people getting involved.
No it isn't. Documents such as
<http://mozilla.org/projects/xpcom/nsString.html>, or
<http://mozilla.org/projects/security/components/design.html>, or
<http://mozilla.org/projects/embedding/embeddingTasks.html> are nothing
to do with people getting involved. They're developer info, for people
who are *already* involved.
> My point is that people
> who are already involved use the QA pages.
Now that I'm already involved in QA and know what I'm doing, I never
look at the QA pages at all.
>...
> > `Docs' is just a contraction of the word `documents'.
>
> Well, then, let's call it "doc", as a contraction of documentation.
> But if you look at the source distribution of any software, there is a
> particular class of manual-like texts which are found in a subdir
> "docs". Most people understand what is meant.
>...
mozilla.org is not a software distribution. mozilla.org is a Web site.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
