On 6/1/07, Dan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think you should consider changing domain names. I don't think the
> name Pylons is bad, just combined with the domain pylonshq.com it just
> doesn't stick. I'd suggest using pylonsframework.org for the following
> reasons:
>
> .org - Eludes to an open source/non-profit. If Pylons is open
> source/non-profit I think its a feature that you should mention to your
> visitors... I didn't see licensing information anywhere on the homepage?
>
> pylonsframework - Eludes to Pylons being a framework right in the
> domain. I'd click on a URL for pylonsframework.org before pylonshq.com.
I like PylonsHQ. What we should do is put "Pylons Headquarters" at
the top of the site as a segue from the domain name to the site.
Pylonshq is short and easy to type. I just hate compound words as
domain names: footemplate, fooframework, fooinc. pylons-framework.org
is much better if we need that "framework" word. But how many people
see a link with the raw URL in it, with nothing else around it? Not
the people we're marketing to. Just deep links to mailing-list
messages and the like.
Pylonshq.org is available. Why don't we snap it up and make it an
alias. Then we'll have the ability to make it the primary site later.
Would we really lose our Google ranking if we made .com a redirect to
.org? Lots of sites have both.
> In general, the things that brought me to Pylons was the 1) speed and
> libraries of Python and 2) MVC development. Both are not even mentioned
> on the homepage. It should be in the first paragraph. WSGI seems
> important, even if I didn't know why, but not a reason I'd choose Pylons
> over another framework. Its not something that I would say in the first
> paragraph. I'd say that most people care about two things: speed (both
> development time and application performance) and stability. These two
> key points should be the focus of the introduction, to grab the visitors
> attention. I do think Pylons is flexible, which can be a feature, but
> it can also be a hindrance... especially for newbies. Thats tricky.
The introduction can be improved, certainly. I wasn't here when
Pylons was started or the website was created, but my sense is that
Pylons has evolved since then. Its first adherents were looking for
*any* framework that was Paste-ified (and thus WSGI-ified) from the
ground up, and Pylons was it. Now we're getting more Pythoneers who
want "something more modular than Turbogears", non-Pythoneers who want
"something like Rails", newbies who want "something easy to code,
scalable, performant, and stable". The trick is to address all these
audiences. If we focus totally on newbies, that leaves everybody else
cold. Plus we need to focus on building 1.0 right now, not on
bringing in hordes of newbies Because...
- we need all hands on deck
- we don't have the resources to train a huge influx of newbies.
after we get 1.0 and the documentation finished, then we'll be in a
better position
- upcoming changes may require changes in applications or cause a
period of instability. Not what newbies are thrilled about.
- other frameworks frankly do a better job of meeting newbie's
needs. Why compete with them in a half-assed way?
I'm not saying don't make the site newbie-friendly. I'm just saying
let's not neglect the other audiences.
You're right that WSGI is no longer important enough to fill 1/3 of
the introduction. WSGI has become an infrastructure piece that all
frameworks should support or else. Nevertheless, Pylons' use of WSGI
as the core rather than an add-on is worth noting, as well as the ease
of of plugging multiple applications into the same URL space via Paste
or within a Pylons controller should be noted.
"Pylons combines the very best ideas from the worlds of Ruby, Python
and Perl, providing a structured but extremely flexible Python web
framework. It's also one of the first projects to leverage the
emerging WSGI standard, which allows extensive re-use and flexibility
-- but only if you need it. Out of the box, Pylons aims to make web
development fast, flexible and easy."
The first and last sentences are vague. TurboGears uses hyperlinks to
substantiate each claim. Mako gives you many of its features in a
nutshell. SQLAlchemy has a table of features and elaborations, and a
link to testimonials. Cheetah does the same, tells where it is being
used ("to generate C++ code, Java, sql, form emails, and even Python
code"), and has a couple quotes on the home page.
> I hate to mention the word, but 'screencasts' is almost a standard. It
> wouldn't hurt if someone could put one together.
True, they help and persuade new users a lot.
Regarding the logo, I'm more concerned about the theme than the
details. What guidelines are we going to give the designer? Just
"make a logo"? Or "make a logo containing an electrical tower"? It's
really up to us to choose our mascot, not leave it to the logo
designer, otherwise he may go off totallyon a tangent. Though it's
worth asking him if he has some different ideas. I like the current
yin-yang snakes in the Python logo but I didn't like some of the
previous logos and refused to wear T-shirts that had them. Quixote
has some windmill logos but what's so "Quixote" about them?
--
Mike Orr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"pylons-discuss" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/pylons-discuss?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
