Previously Lennart Regebro wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 5, 2008 at 5:52 PM, Martin Aspeli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >   - "Projects" gives an explanation of how the different Zope projects fit
> > together (Zope 2, Zope 3, Grok, CMF, ZODB). Each is then given a subfolder
> > that contains a standard structure: A front page that explains the project
> > in more detail, "Get" (downloads), "Taste" (as above, but for a particular
> > project) and "Learn". The "Learn" section should contain relevant,
> > up-to-date documentation.
> No!
> Each project should have it's own site. Like Grok has today. The
> Projects page which explains what they are and how they fit together
> is fine, but the different subparts will necessarily have to be
> maintained by slightly different people with slightly different
> requirements.
> We can set up rules so that both and
> point to the same physical place, but it is extremely
> important that we do not, once again, try to make a monolithic
> Microsites, microsites, microsites!

I disagree. Very much. Note that we are not forcing everyone to use this
new site; it is perfectly possible for projects to setup their own site.
There are disadvantages to that that should be considered: you loose the
consistency of a central site with a consistent structure, you loose the
consistent image & styling and possibly make it harder for people to
find something. For grok it does work since it has people actively
making sure it has an excellent user experience. But where is the ZODB
site? The Zope2 site? The Zope3 site? The CMF site? None of those have
their own site (there are some user-unfriendly wikis but I would not
call those sites) and we should not be asking them to make one.


Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>    It is simple to make things.                   It is hard to make things simple.
Zope-Dev maillist  -
**  No cross posts or HTML encoding!  **
(Related lists - )

Reply via email to