Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 14:30:24 -0800 (PST) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design David wrote: (a) See if others also think that the three alternatives for a mod_perl site are not very desirable. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. I don't have a strong opinion. (b) See if others also think that using the ASF generic site design (even though it's not cool and distinctive) would be a good idea. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. I agree that using the ASF generic site is a good idea. And why not? mod_perl is so closely integrated with Apache, why shouldn't mod_perl's website at least adapt the Apache website look and feel? Also, lets keep in mind something that Stas pointed out to me: most anything is a step up from our existing site design. So, if we go with one of the three existing options it's still a step up. That's for sure! :) -- keith [EMAIL PROTECTED] public key: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/kkeller/public_key alt.os.linux.slackware FAQ: http://wombat.san-francisco.ca.us/perl/fom
Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design (fwd)
-- Forwarded message -- Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2001 17:12:56 -0600 From: Carlos Ramirez [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: David Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design From: David Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Carlos Ramirez's design is broken: broken navigation and pages that don't even exist. The page look is somewhat nice, but I can't really evaluate the navigation because it's so broken. My purpose was to submit a proposed 'layout' and 'navigation' and not a fully function website (due to time constraints). I think you can get the picture of how the site will navigate without having all the content. I mentioned this to Stas when I submitted it. But, let's not forget that people where given a chance to submit their designs and ideas and also to vote. I did not have too much time to complete entry (hence the broken links and missing content), but because I wanted some change, I submitted a design and voted. I was very surprised to see only three entries and even more when Stas announced the low turn-out. But, this does not justify the elimination of the 'election', altogether. We should go with the winning design and go from there. We can always tweak the winning design abit aftwards (??). My only suggestion is that the navigation of the site be somewhere on the top instead of 'squishing' the menu and the content together. You have more real estate for content when the navigation is on top. Which is the main purpose for sites like these. $0.02 -Carlos
mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design
Hi, I've been watching the mod_perl site issue as it has progressed. Just last week Stas mentioned that voting at the online booth has been poor. (Low turnout.) I think I know why voting has been poor. And in my off-list conversation with Stas he's mentioned that other people have had the same opinions. I also think I have some constructive ideas. So, without further introduction, lets get into the thick of things. :-) I almost didn't vote for a site design. I went and looked at the three options: Allan Juul's design has navigation that doesn't help very much: it doesn't give top level links from every page and doesn't let you know where you are inside the site. The leaf pages don't even mention mod_perl anywhere, which is really weird and somewhat broken IMO. Carlos Ramirez's design is broken: broken navigation and pages that don't even exist. The page look is somewhat nice, but I can't really evaluate the navigation because it's so broken. Thomas Klausner's isn't broken in anyway and acceptable, but I don't really *like* the page look very much. So, because I liked none of the options and felt straight-jacketed with only one choice that was minimally functional, I almost didn't vote at all! In the end I voted for Klausner's in a simple defensive move to prevent a broken design from winning. I wish I had the time to create my own site and enter it into the competition. I'm think that others probably feel this way. However, the cause is not lost. We are not *required* as a community to pick one of these three proposed designs. This competition is just a tool to get a working site design. The mod_perl site needs a new design because: (a) it looks crummy and we are probably loosing users, (b) Stas is in the process of integrating the documentation into the site and therefore needs a new site design (and he's not a web designer). We can really do whatever we want. OK, now for the CONSTRUCTIVE PROPOSAL. :-) I propose that we simply use a site design that is the uniform psudo-standard for the Apache Software Foundation. A number of ASF projects are using this site design: http://www.apache.org/ http://httpd.apache.org/ http://jakarta.apache.org/ http://www.apache.org/foundation/ I used to think that this site design used by the ASF looked really dumb and plain. Now I think it rocks compared to these other three sites. It's simple and effective. Best of all, most of the design choices have already been made for us! Stas has pointed out the ASF site design uses different navigational features than the boilerplate site that he published back on 11/13/2001. This is true, but I think that we have some flexibility in changing the navigation. (I have some issues with the navigation in Stas' boilerplate, anyway.) I also suspect that one of the reasons that we've only had three sites contributed (and a couple of them broken) is because of the learning curve for learning Yet Another Publishing Tool (DocSet) that Stas is using. Additionally, we are a list mainly of programmers, not graphic designers. Perhaps having the graphic design issues solved by using the ASF site design, more people will be willing to volunteer to solve the programming issues of merging the existing DocSet boilerplate and the ASF design. OK. Now what to do with this? First what NOT to do: Please DO NOT respond and say Oh, well, that's nice but please integrate some of the ideas from some other website that I like. This causes endless discussion that GOES NOWHERE. We need concrete proposals. This e-mail is not intended to cause a general discussion of what people would like to see in a website. This has happened before and resulted in no forward progress. (So you ask: why is David allowed to propose a new idea? What I'm proposing is that we just wholesale copy an existing site design -- one that already exists, is related to us through Apache, and we can copy without any shame. So, in effect, what I'm proposing is as concrete as the example sites already posted for voting.) The purpose of this e-mail is as follows: (a) See if others also think that the three alternatives for a mod_perl site are not very desirable. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. (b) See if others also think that using the ASF generic site design (even though it's not cool and distinctive) would be a good idea. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. (c) Perhaps elicit a volunteer to design an example site that includes Stas' content and the ASF generic design. If enough people agree with the first two points, someone may be willing to volunteer to do this.. perhaps even one of the existing contributors who have already figured out DocSet. Perhaps even Stas! Lets try to keep this constructive, focused, and concrete. :-) Also, lets keep in mind something that Stas pointed out to me: most anything is a step up from our existing site design. So, if we go with one of the three existing options it's still a step up. David
Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design
At 4:17 PM -0500 12/17/01, David Harris wrote: The purpose of this e-mail is as follows: (a) See if others also think that the three alternatives for a mod_perl site are not very desirable. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. I agree. (b) See if others also think that using the ASF generic site design (even though it's not cool and distinctive) would be a good idea. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. I agree. (c) Perhaps elicit a volunteer to design an example site that includes Stas' content and the ASF generic design. If enough people agree with the first two points, someone may be willing to volunteer to do this.. perhaps even one of the existing contributors who have already figured out DocSet. Perhaps even Stas! Not me, sorry. A little too busy right now. Lets try to keep this constructive, focused, and concrete. :-) Concrete isn't used when building websites. Also, lets keep in mind something that Stas pointed out to me: most anything is a step up from our existing site design. So, if we go with one of the three existing options it's still a step up. So long as most anything doesn't include designs that are broken. Rob -- When I used a Mac, they laughed because I had no command prompt. When I used Linux, they laughed because I had no GUI.
Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, David Harris wrote: (a) See if others also think that the three alternatives for a mod_perl site are not very desirable. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. I thought Thomas' was fine but I think I actually prefer the ASF one. (b) See if others also think that using the ASF generic site design (even though it's not cool and distinctive) would be a good idea. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. I agree. Also, lets keep in mind something that Stas pointed out to me: most anything is a step up from our existing site design. So, if we go with one of the three existing options it's still a step up. Damn straight. -dave /*== www.urth.org We await the New Sun ==*/
Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design
Hi! On Mon, Dec 17, 2001 at 04:17:02PM -0500, David Harris wrote: As one of the three contributers I'd like to reply to some points you made: Thomas Klausner's isn't broken in anyway and acceptable, but I don't really *like* the page look very much. The main goal of my proposial wasn't really to /look/ good (as I am not a designer), but to be standard compiliant and fast loading and to make future /design/ changes easy by strictly seperating structure (HTML) from style (CSS). I propose that we simply use a site design that is the uniform psudo-standard for the Apache Software Foundation. A number of ASF projects are using this site design: http://www.apache.org/ http://httpd.apache.org/ http://jakarta.apache.org/ http://www.apache.org/foundation/ I just took a brief look at those sites, and I think that they are structurally somewhat different from the (new) mod_perl site. All those sites are rather flat, i.e. there are no deep nested hierarchies like at the mod_perl site (e.g.: Home / Documentation / mod_perl Developer's guide / ) We could maybe adopt their color scheme etc, but I think the mod_perl site /will/ need some more navigational tools. (a) See if others also think that the three alternatives for a mod_perl site are not very desirable. If you agree, please speak up and say that you agree. Just to defend my submission: All coloring, positioning, fonts, box layout etc is done in one CSS file that can easily be made nicer-looking. I basically just separated the structure from the styling, so that anybody who feels so inclined can do a nicer styling more easily. (c) Perhaps elicit a volunteer to design an example site that includes Stas' content and the ASF generic design. If enough people agree with the first two points, someone may be willing to volunteer to do this.. perhaps even one of the existing contributors who have already figured out DocSet. Perhaps even Stas! I think it would be quite easy to modify my submission to look like the ASF sites, but some navigational issues will have to be solved. For Example, I think that the NavBar on the top of the page, that shows where in the site you currently are and provides links to the upper levels is absolutely necessery. The prev/next links are quite nice, but not that important IMO. -- D_OMM + http://domm.zsi.at -+ O_xyderkes | neu: Arbeitsplatz | M_echanen | http://domm.zsi.at/d/d162.html | M_asteuei ++
Re: mod_perl site challenge: proposal to use ASF site design
On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Thomas Klausner wrote: I propose that we simply use a site design that is the uniform psudo-standard for the Apache Software Foundation. A number of ASF projects are using this site design: http://www.apache.org/ http://httpd.apache.org/ http://jakarta.apache.org/ http://www.apache.org/foundation/ I just took a brief look at those sites, and I think that they are structurally somewhat different from the (new) mod_perl site. All those sites are rather flat, i.e. there are no deep nested hierarchies like at the mod_perl site (e.g.: Home / Documentation / mod_perl Developer's guide / ) Interestingly this has come up on the Cocoon-dev list also, who are looking to update the design of xml.apache.org, in such a way to allow deep navigation. Interested parties should probably check that list (try marc.theaimsgroup.com, subject Forrest). -- !-- Matt -- :-Get a smart net/:-
