Hi,
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:33:38 +0200
Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Pragmatism: it is sensible to say that Evolution needs to be featured
> somewhere in wgo. And we are going to have a list of featured
> products. Let's move forward.
>
You're leading. It's your decision.
> Now that th
--- Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Interestingly, doing a search for "evolution
> site:gnome.org" gives 2
> distinct results (and many more for subpages of the
> first one)
>
> http://www.gnome.org/gnome-office/evolution.shtml
Whoa!!! That's apparently not even part of the wgo
direct
On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 15:57:35 +0200
Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:33 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
> > COMMENTS ABOUT GOOGLE RESULTS
> > > However, it will be nearly impossible to get Evolution
> > > homepage into the top list for a search term like 'Email client'
>
>
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 15:33 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
> COMMENTS ABOUT GOOGLE RESULTS
> > However, it will be nearly impossible to get Evolution
> > homepage into the top list for a search term like 'Email client'
Interestingly, doing a search for "evolution site:gnome.org" gives 2
distinct results (
Pragmatism: it is sensible to say that Evolution needs to be featured
somewhere in wgo. And we are going to have a list of featured products.
Let's move forward.
El dt 08 de 08 del 2006 a les 13:59 +0200, en/na Claus Schwarm va
escriure:
> When I say "product page" I mean
Now that the product pa
[snip]
> - We are going ahead with a software map as outlined in [1], which will
> basically just be a list of endorsed applications (or whatever we are
> calling it now). We are still going ahead with it, right?
[snip]
> [1] http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/SoftwareMap
Quim is The Decider, but:
I
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 04:15 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> "Software Map" is not the right way to approach these problems, and it's not
> the right way to get things our users care about on the page.
Fair enough, I'll back my stubborn ass off the case :)
To summarize:
- Our focus now is to present t
Hi, Quim!
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 23:49:20 +0200
Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> First I want to note that many user will drop in a product page
> directly via Google if we do things right.
>
This is excactly what I'm worried about about: It's not a problem
to move several pages in Google's h
--- Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Quim, and Gazim was it? "Not scrolling" is soo
> overrated. Screen sizes
> (and windows sizes!) are not uniform, so there is no
> way of avoiding
> scrolling. (To rant a bit, I hate designs which
> impose too much
> structure on a web page. It might lo
El dl 07 de 08 del 2006 a les 22:53 +0200, en/na Claus Schwarm va
escriure:
> Most users who are likely to visit wgo are probably happy with the
> screenshot tour, a link to gnomefiles, and links to some other project
> homepages.
Conclusion: we need to add the GNOME tour to
http://live.gnome.org
On Tue, 8 Aug 2006 04:15:04 +1000
Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I started on this thread by suggesting that we're approaching the
> problem the wrong way. I'm still saying it. Does your Mum want a
> software map? Mine doesn't. Mine wants to know more about "Tomboy"
> when her friend t
On Mon, 2006-07-08 at 15:54 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Gezim and Jeff: controlled duplication of information is not a bad
> thing. One reason is aggregation, for example the blog planets. There is
> added value in pulling info together from a number of places. Another is
> repetition while drill
> The original subject of this thread was Software Map
Which is the wrong way to think about the problem, isn't it? That's why I'm
pushing for a different way of thinking about it.
> Currently /projects/* _is_ just a list of applications
It's not really. Have a look. It's a grab-bag of crud. L
On Tue, 2006-08-08 at 02:36 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > Jeff: I'm obsessed with URLs because it reflects the organization of
> > content, which is what we are discussing here.
>
> Talking about URLs just distracts from your focus on the design. You're
> putting the horse before the cart. Al
> Hmm. So we are talking about leaving wgo/projects/* _as is_ for this
> release
Given the state of plans for dealing with /projects/ I'd say that ought to
be an unqualified YES (though I've suggested this before).
> My humble vote is against a bastard solution where both old and new "CMS"
> co
On Mon, 2006-08-07 at 17:12 +0200, Quim Gil wrote:
> If you were looking for info about Evolution you probably will know. If
> you don't have a clue what Evolution is, /app/evolution won't give you
> much more info ("it is an application" - "great, but almost everything
> in gnome are apps, so what
> > For example, someone mentioned wgo/inkscape during the discussion, and
> > it's hard to see what makes Inkscape so special to, well, "deserve" our
> > special attention.
>
> True, that was a bad example I provided without much context. Please
> substitute in our discussion wgo/inkscape by wg
El dl 07 de 08 del 2006 a les 18:02 +0200, en/na Claus Schwarm va
escriure:
> For example, someone mentioned wgo/inkscape during the discussion, and
> it's hard to see what makes Inkscape so special to, well, "deserve" our
> special attention.
True, that was a bad example I provided without much
> Jeff: I'm obsessed with URLs because it reflects the organization of
> content, which is what we are discussing here.
Talking about URLs just distracts from your focus on the design. You're
putting the horse before the cart. All this talk about projects.go and
/apps/ and so on - these *are* im
Hi,
On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 17:12:05 +0200
Quim Gil <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I still don't see why it is us wgo maintainers offending people.
Because *we* obviously decide which projects gets "promoted" with the
GNOME web resources. If our choice appears to be arbitrary, people
may get angry (o
El dl 07 de 08 del 2006 a les 15:54 +0200, en/na Gergely Nagy va
escriure:
> I suggested the wgo/apps/appname URL instead of wgo/projects/appname
I think at this point we agree that we are talking about
applications/products/software and not about projects/teams/people for
this specific case. We
Hi,
mega answering roll follows
First of all, Quim, thanks for coming up with such a great diagram! I
think it illustrates well what we are aiming to do, and it can help the
discussion a lot.
Jeff: I'm obsessed with URLs because it reflects the organization of
content, which is what we are disc
--- Jeff Waugh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> > wgo/app | projects
> > intro, shots | contact, download, roadmap, ideas
>
> Why split? Reaching out to potential GNOME
> contributors and showing people
> the wonder of Free Software is our responsibility.
> Of course there are going
> to
I've drawn a diagram:
http://live.gnome.org/data/GnomeWeb(2f)NewWgoStructure/attachments/gnomeproductpages.pdf
As I see it:
www.gnome.org/evolution or www.gnome.org/inkscape are product
information pages. One illustrated page with links, if possible without
scrolling. They don't aim to be produc
Hi, Quim!
Thanks for the summery.
I suggest to rename the page
http://live.gnome.org/GnomeWeb/SoftwareMap, then.
In fact, after reading the page again, Murray asked the most relevant
question right in the beginning: What is the purpose of the list?
I'm was just asking the same question: What's
> wgo/app | projects
> intro, shots | contact, download, roadmap, ideas
Why split? Reaching out to potential GNOME contributors and showing people
the wonder of Free Software is our responsibility. Of course there are going
to be things that are not appropriate for the product page, but tha
--- Gezim Hoxha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-05-08 at 12:49 +0200, Gergely Nagy
> wrote:
> > Hi,
>
> Hi.
>
> >
> > All right, so let's get back to basics :)
>
> We seem to need to do this, every now and then.
>
> >
> > Clearly, for these pages to make some sense at
> all, there
> > - authoritative
> > by this i mean it will be the hopefully best maintained and relevant
> > info source on an application relevant to gnome. People will of course
> > be free to create an "official" website for their app, and publish it as
> > they see fit. Yet, the wgo app pages would appea
On Sat, 2006-05-08 at 12:49 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Hi,
Hi.
>
> All right, so let's get back to basics :)
We seem to need to do this, every now and then.
>
> Clearly, for these pages to make some sense at all, there has to be some
> added value. Let's try to enumerate these first...
>
>
> > Gergely: s/applications/products/ - or you'll forget about a whole bunch
> > of things that will need to fit in with this. :-)
>
> I can't think of any. You mean stuff like gnome-office? Maybe they deserve
> their own space? Say wgo/office/?
Ok, first, don't get hooked on URL implementation
An attempt to get conclusions from this interesting discussion.
1. DIFFERENT LAYERS AND GOALS
- All the discussion refers to content located at www.gnome.org EXCEPT
the wgo/project/* subsites that we are not going to touch at all in this
release (and might or might not become projects.gnome.org).
Hi,
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006 16:02:23 +0100 (BST)
Joachim Noreiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> That's all too much technical detail for wgo, and it
> will detract from pages aimed at users.
>
Some more thoughts about the topic:
* What about the Windows port of Evolution? Say, a Windows uses
g
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 16:02 +0100, Joachim Noreiko wrote:
> Suppose I am a potential developer, interested in
> Nautilus.
> I need to be directed towards pages that tell me...
>
> - who is currently working on nautilus
> - how to communicate with them (mailing list, irc)
> - what's in the developm
Jeff Waugh wrote :
> Secondly, as someone mentioned on this list only
> a week or so ago, look at all the Apple product sites (also that you
can get
> info about almost any product using www.apple.com/Secondly,
as someone mentioned on this list only
Yeah, I really like the apple.com's way. For exa
--- Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:54 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> >
> >
> > > --- Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I see wgo/apps/ page as an about box on
> steroids. It would be _the_ pace
> > > > to go to find out some basic info about a
> gno
On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 22:54 +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
>
>
> > --- Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > I see wgo/apps/ page as an about box on steroids. It would be _the_ pace
> > > to go to find out some basic info about a gnome app.
> >
> > That's a good way of putting it :)
> >
> > M
> --- Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I see wgo/apps/ page as an about box on steroids. It would be _the_ pace
> > to go to find out some basic info about a gnome app.
>
> That's a good way of putting it :)
>
> Material that is currently in wgo/projects that is more aimed at
> devel
--- Gergely Nagy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I see wgo/apps/ page as an about box on steroids. It
> would be _the_ pace
> to go to find out some basic info about a gnome app.
That's a good way of putting it :)
Material that is currently in wgo/projects that is
more aimed at developers should
Hi,
All right, so let's get back to basics :)
Clearly, for these pages to make some sense at all, there has to be some
added value. Let's try to enumerate these first...
- authoritative
by this i mean it will be the hopefully best maintained and relevant
info source on an application relevant to
39 matches
Mail list logo
