| gabriel rosenkoetter on Thu, 10 Oct 2002 10:40:05 -0400 |
|
I'm mostly skipping over point 1; it's been done to death and everyone gets the point by now, I'm sure. (Fwiw, it renders just fine in w3m--which does do images and tables, though it's still mostly a text browser, in that it operates in a terminal--though the table bg-color trickery obviously falls flat on its face.) On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 12:29:36AM -0400, Iman Mayes wrote: > 2) Several people have agreed that the existing site could be organized > better. You've got no argument from me. > 3) I did not realize that "doing external searches to get information on a > site because the information was not easy to find on the site" was > considered a good thing. I don't think that Samantha meant that as a compliment to the existing web site; that email was just intended, as I read it, to describe her current interaction so that those changing things would have perspective other than their own on what should be changed. > 4) The only people who will need logins to the site are the administrators, > if we use a CMS. Then why should anyone besides the administrators ever be presented with such an interface? > 5) If you are concerned about time and effort, don't be. Unless of course > you will be a maintainer. The concern about "someone's" time and effort is that, in a community- oriented group like this, maintainers are always volunteers. They get tired of it, move out of the area, get hit by trucks. And then, if the system that they've built is complex to maintain (but was no big deal for them), maintenance simply stops. I wouldn't want to see that happen, so I would want the maintenance of the website to be simple. (And don't tell me that the Zope interface is simple. For one thing, I'm sure it is, but more importantly that's not the point. It's upgrading Zope when the next security problem in it shows up, moving Zope when the webserver changes, fixing Zope when it wigs out for whatever reason--though since Allaire never owned them, we're probably okay on that ;^>.) > 6) As far as proving why it should change, what does that mean? How can you > prove that (other than the fact that come people on the list seem to think a > reorg is a good idea)? Does not my opinion count? Or the opinion of others? This seemed like an unfair complaint to me too. There are clear, simple, information-organization problems with the current web site. I disagree that the right solution involves detecting what browser the client is using, making use of JavaScript, or whatever else (those are visual design, NOT logical design tools), but at no point has it been my intention to suggest we leave anything as it is. (Note that this is not meant as a slam at Darxus: it takes hashing and rehashing to figure out a good, simple, logical design, and the PLUG web site got better over the time I've been paying attention to it, but it could be still better.) > 7) Now, if the group as a majority feel that the site should not be a > primary information source, then of course everything I bring up is not > valid. I don't think anyone has suggested that to be the case. I don't think I've heard anyone say that they are flatly against redesigning the web page. I'd been taking it as given that that would happen, and been reading this as a group discussion on just what form that site should take. (There've been some tangential how-the-web-does- and-should-work arguments which I definitely took part in. None of that should be construed as against the overall concept here. Please don't take it that way.) > 8) Please, I am not out to start a religious war. That's what Slashdot is > for :). It's also, last I checked, where polls belong. ;^> > Those in favor of a redesign, respond with a subject line of: YES - REDESIGN > (forget the how for now). > > Those who think that the sight should just stay the way it is, on the > subject line: NO - REDESIGN. Like I said, I'm taking a redesign for granted, and I don't think anyone's argued that it shouldn't happen (and I doubt that anyone *could* without sounding totally unreasonable). Furthermore, I get enough email as it is, and I'm sure most of you do too. Please, let's NOT have an AOL-fest here. A discussion list is for discussion. It is not for content-free voting emails. -- gabriel rosenkoetter gr@eclipsed.net Attachment:
pgp8EthxQATEG.pgp
|
|