One thing I'd like to see is a little more forethought about how the site looks and feels to a modern audience.
Look at this site: http://www.springframework.org/ Simple navigation on the left, big font for headers, nice and web 2.0-ish. Useful information on the front page... something that makes me want to visit again and again. Then: http://www.rubyonrails.org/ Does not overload you with information with big icons directing traffic. You can easily drill down, down and down - eventually hitting the molten core of what you want. http://wicket.apache.org/ Again: big and easy to read - was even generated via Maven. Then, the Maven site: http://maven.apache.org/ Small fonts (never use 'px', ever again!), lots of crap on the left-hand side. No real direction other than how to download. The real web 2.0? Not necessarily AJAX, but, simplify, simplify, simplify - remove uninteresting items from their field of view, and highlight what people want to see. Many of the examples have XML or java code in them... why is the code not highlighted? It's an easy win that would help tremendously with comprehension - check out: http://code.google.com/p/syntaxhighlighter/ Besides look and feel, it's worth mentioning that the list of options on the front page is horrid: * Run Maven * Use Maven * Write Maven Plugins * Improve the Maven Repository * Develop Maven Run and Use? Is there a difference? Maybe, but is hardly an important enough of a distinction to make right here. Writing plugins seems cool enough - except the wordage kind of only makes sense if you already understand Maven. How about "writing extensions" or "customizing maven"? "Improve the Repository" doesn't belong on the front page. It's a good thing to try and push (community-wise), but is it really something your average user cares about? If you think of the front-page as the front porch of your house, you've just put a toilet out there - it confuses your guests, and makes them think your whole house will smell like shit. Ditto for "Develop Maven". Interested developers can dig for arcane knowledge on their own - consider it a first test. -- Eric Redmond http://blog.propellors.net On 9/26/07, Brian E. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > A common theme in the "maven is hard" thread is bad documentation and > I'd like to explore this a little. For the sake of discussion, lets > separate the plugin docs from the maven site. (Why? Because each plugin > site is like it's own little world and some are good and some are bad. > We can have that discussion after) > > > > I took a look at our site again. The first thing I notice is that it is > mostly setup towards grabbing new users with the big "Learning about > Maven" section. This is ok for total newbies, but quickly runs out of > steam. I also took another look at the Ant site that everyone raves > about. The major difference I see is the link prominently titled > "Manual" Once you go into the manual however, it is still a little tough > to drive down to what you need. You have to know what you're looking for > before you can find it. I don't think the Ant manual is all too > different from this page: http://maven.apache.org/guides/index.html > > > > The thing I'd like to know is what is missing from this list that should > be there? > > > > I think there is some potential to be gained from taking all those docs > and arranging them in a more cohesive structure, but I do think that > lots of information is there. Unfortunately we aren't all great > technical writers, nor were the docs written as a book. This is where > the BBWM and Sonatype books come in handy. They are meant as an end to > end resource and where done with some Tech Writing help (I'm assuming > here). > > > > Lets list some positive improvements that can be made to the existing > Maven site in this thread. > > > > Thanks, > > Brian > >
