On Thu, 2011-07-21 at 13:32 +0200, Patrick Ohly wrote: > On Do, 2011-07-21 at 11:10 +0200, Murray Cumming wrote: > > I suggest some simple structural changes to the website, to make things > > clearer: > > > > 1. Remove the wiki link. > > > > We should just accept that the website _is_ a wiki. That "main page" > > page has become a target of random user feedback. That's not the best > > place for it. > > > > Partly because of the text sizes and layout, the comments look like main > > (rather random) content at first glance. > > I agree that this is problematic. But technically there is a difference > between the rest of the web site and the Wiki part: normal users may > only edit the Wiki pages. > > Are you suggesting that all pages should be editable by anyone?
Actually, yes, though I'd lock the front page. It needs you to be careful about only allowing edits when logged in and having some bot protection for new user creation. But that's probably a problem that you already have with the wiki pages. If you want only a sub-section of the site to be user-editable then the distinction needs to be clearer. Personally, I think it leads to fragmentated content instead of improved content. [snip] > > 3. Add a real Downloads page. > > This is currently just a directory listing. There should be some brief > > text and a description of each binary and how to install it. > > What kind of text and description would you expect for, e.g., > http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/syncevolution-evolution-1.1.99.5b-2.x86_64.rpm > ? I'd link to http://downloads.syncevolution.org/syncevolution/evolution/ and describe it without referring to any particular version. > While I agree that this is useful, I'm a bit weary of the additional > overhead for each release. > > > 2. Remove comments. > > The comments don't seem like the best way to deal with feedback, and > > they distract from the main contact. Even in the best case, old comments > > will still be there after their feedback has been dealt with by > > improvements in the page itself, distracting from that content and > > giving the initial impression that those problems still exist. > > Just to be sure, you suggest to remove obsolete comments, not the > comment feature itself, right? I'm suggesting removing comments, though you are the best judge of how it has been used so far. At the very least, I would change the text layout so that comments are clearly separate. > Would it make sense to move comments to an "archive" or "discussion" > page? Yes, restricting comments to a single discussion page would be an improvement. But I really doubt that it's a good way to handle feedback. > Many users left comments randomly anyway, without directly > referring to the current page. Yes, which makes things seem neglected. -- [email protected] www.murrayc.com www.openismus.com _______________________________________________ SyncEvolution mailing list [email protected] http://lists.syncevolution.org/listinfo/syncevolution
