On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Kay Schenk <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, update on this...a contact us page is now available at: > http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html >
I think it would be better if the "If you want to contact the Apache OpenOffice developer team..." was the last option. So give the "self-service" options first. If none of them apply, then they see how to contact the ooo-dev list. In general, put the most-likely solution first, then in decreasing order the solutions that require more effort. -Rob > It is VERY simple and I did what I could for incorporating the use of our > existing Bug gateway (which I also made changes to in an attempt to cover > the existing Bugzilla categories. As with all of the ooo-site, anyone with > comitter rights can make changes. > > Dave, please incorporate into the footer if you're doing seem editing on > that as you see fit. Having a link next to the Copyright and Licenses seems > fine though that is followed by a paragraph specifically related to that. > > My preference would be to have "Contact Us" centered immediately below the > footer line if possible. > > Have fun! > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Kay Schenk <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> >>> >>> On 10 February 2012 18:52, Kay Schenk <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < >>> > [email protected]> wrote: >>> > >>> >> I agree with Kay that one reason someone may want to contact us is >>> because >>> >> there is a problem with the web site itself. I also think that going >>> >> directly to the mailing list page is perhaps too abrupt. Some free >>> >> analysis from the top of orcmid's head: >>> >> >>> > >>> > yes, really, this was my intention -- but I think Rob's calrification >>> would >>> > work for that. I started wondering about this in light of the recent >>> > communication re that bad link. How long did it take Rick to figure out >>> who >>> > to contact, etc. (I also know we need to get going with some reasonable >>> > analysis tool to tract these down *beforehand* if we can) . I didn't >>> mean >>> > for this to be a "user centric" catchall. >>> > >>> > I can certainly understand the value of a User centric FAQ in this >>> regard. >>> > And we may even have one! >>> > >>> > >>> >> For issues about the site(s) itself, I think a bottom-of-page link is >>> >> fine. It might go to another web page that refines the contact based >>> on >>> >> particular cases (two that should always be prominent and >>> straightforward >>> >> are for the site and for anything to do with security concerns -- but >>> not >>> >> directly to ooo-security.). >>> >> >>> >> With user issues, taking people directly to bugzilla is effectively a >>> >> giant FU for ordinary users. A bullet item that links to how to file >>> a bug >>> >> and also links directly to bugzilla is good, so experts don't have to >>> do >>> >> the drill-down. (Might need a branch for those needing a bugzilla >>> account >>> >> too.) [Something like this might help refine the security case as >>> well.] >>> >> >>> > >>> > I think you're right on this one. BZ is too daunting jut to report a >>> link >>> > problem unless we can implement a nicer front end to BZ just for these >>> > cases. I will be happy to investigate this. We may even be able to do a >>> > "proxy login" of some sort. >>> > >>> > >>> >> Then I think there can be explanation that all other support is peer >>> >> support from other users and developer volunteers, with some indication >>> >> about the options (wiki, forums, web site, mailing-list subscriptions, >>> and >>> >> bugzilla) and how to search/explore/choose among them. This would >>> probably >>> >> be right after something about web site issues and security concerns. >>> >> >>> >> Third tier on some of these might be FAQ that provide more detail and >>> help >>> >> users address common concerns. (I.e., what to do when an AV product >>> says >>> >> their download is infected, what the project does to ensure the >>> integrity >>> >> of binaries and how to find those to be confident in them, how to check >>> >> their authenticity, etc. That's been going around lately.) >>> >> >>> >> Finally, of course, there is always the welcoming of those who might >>> want >>> >> to themselves contribute to an aspect that is a concern or interest for >>> >> them. >>> >> >>> > >>> > yes... :) I hope this is reasonably covered in the revisions to the >>> "Help >>> > Wanted" page I made, but, of course, it's an ongoing process. >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> I suppose I should put myself in this last category, although I am not >>> >> prepared to figure out how to work on such a page [set]. Sorry. >>> >> >>> >> - Dennis >>> >> >>> > >>> > Thanks for the feedback from everyone, I will investigate options >>> further. >>> > >>> > >>> >> >>> >> -----Original Message----- >>> >> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:[email protected]] >>> >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 09:43 >>> >> To: [email protected] >>> >> Subject: Re: [WWW] Feedback/"contact us" about the website link >>> needed... >>> >> >>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> [ ... ] >>> >> > Another way to think of it: 99.99% of the time, if a user actually >>> >> > needs to contact us, then the website has failed its purpose. We can >>> >> > only handle 100 million users if, for the vast majority of cases, >>> they >>> >> > can self-support themselves via the website's navigation and find >>> what >>> >> > they want. So the challenge here is to handle the exceptional 0.01% >>> >> > of cases, without becoming the path of least resistance for the other >>> >> > 99.99%. >>> >> > >>> >> > -Rob >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> Rob-- >>> >> >>> >> I understand what you're saying, believe me. I guess I feel we should >>> >> provide an easier avenue for people to report problems with the site >>> >> itself. I'm also aware that if I just put in a simple link with a >>> "mailto" >>> >> tag, many folks won't be able to deal with that because they won't >>> have a >>> >> "default" e-mail client. >>> >> >>> >> How about a "Contact Us" link that directs them to our existing >>> "Mailing >>> >> List" page -- >>> >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html. >>> >> We could add a bit more description to the "Development Mailing List" >>> to >>> >> indicate that it would be used for submitting questions/problems about >>> the >>> >> web site. >>> >> >>> >> Or do you think it would be best to direct them to BZ? >>> >>> Briefly: the Contact Us link usually went to me, in OOo. The traffic >>> can be high or low; low if one does it right, and routes people >>> appropriately. Basic rules apply: you don't answer "how-to" questions, >>> unless you are a masochist. You answer the other, much fewer in >>> number, questions. >>> >> >> Hi Louis-- and thanks for this response. For now, I was going to set this >> up as a "portal" for dealing with web site issues ONLY -- the link will be >> called "Report Problems with the Web Site", taking users to an landing page >> that will initially search for all "issues" in BZ related to the web site, >> so the user can see what's already been reported, and optionally, add to an >> existing issue or create a new one. >> >> But...it might be a good idea to also include some mention of the >> "Support" page on this intermediate BZ landing/search page. This should >> take care of a great portion of the support issues. Good suggestion! >> >> >> >> >>> I volunteer to continue in the role I've grown mossy over. >>> >> >> Thanks. I'm just going to set this up for BZ as previously suggested. >> >> >>> I also think that IFF we are intending to replicate some of the >>> friendly to endusers approach of the old OOo, then we would do well to >>> emulate some of the pages we had: >>> >>> * FAQ on simple things, like where to go with issues *using* OOo and >>> also *building* and "developing* it. We already have much of that, so >>> this would just be links. >>> >>> * Support page: I think the old support page can simply, as is already >>> being done, be updated and pruned. (Drew is on this, I believe?) >>> >>> * License and trademark issues: this was the more difficult one and >>> merits for attention, at least for the more difficult questions. >>> Others are routine, and we've discussed this already here. >>> >>> Further along these lines: Even if we are not plunging into minimally >>> addressing users (and I think we ought not to shift our shape so to >>> max unless we actually want to), we will be dealing with the >>> media--professional as well as "citizen" journalists. Having, as we >>> had before, a "press kit," done in accordance with Apache, will help >>> both us and any member of the fourth estate. >>> >>> Louis >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- >> MzK >> >> "Follow your bliss." >> -- attributed to Joseph Campbell >> >> >> >> > > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > MzK > > "Follow your bliss." > -- attributed to Joseph Campbell
