cayenne-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kevin Menard <>
Subject Re: Cayenne web site design
Date Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:55:02 GMT
Andrus Adamchik wrote:
> My idea of how this should be organized is to show at most 2-3 
> releases that we think of as "current" to avoid the clutter. And then 
> add "Other..." menu item in the bottom of documentation section that 
> points to the docs collections for the old releases. "1.1" should 
> probably go in the "Other" category.

Fair enough, but 1.2 and 2.0 are essentially the same release.  I 
actually think having them both marked as stable is going to create a 
bit of a confusing situation as is.  If we're going to go this way, then 
I'd mark 2.0 as "current" and 1.2 as "legacy" (and avoid the whole 
stability issue).  3.0 would obviously be "development."

>> o In thinking about it more, it may make more sense to invert the 
>> version order for the documentation.  Right now, the development 
>> version is the first accessible one, although we should be promoting 
>> the stable release for general use.
> Current ordering was actually my idea :-) The point was mainly to show 
> things in chronological order, newest first... Maybe we can break dev 
> release out of it, and strip the "stable" label (it should be 
> implied), but keep the rest in order:
> * Version 2.0
> * Version 1.2
> * Development Release (Version 3.0)


> Once 3.0 goes Beta, the menu will look like this, to encourage users 
> to try the Beta:
> * Version 3.0 (Beta)
> * Version 2.0
> * Version 1.2

-0.  The people that want to run the beta will run it anyway.  I think 
we should still be promoting 2.0 as the version people should be using 
for production work.

>> o I'm thinking it may be worthwhile to have a whole section dedicated 
>> to support.  This would have links to FAQs, commercial support, 
>> mailing lists, and what not.
> I am +1 on support. But as a result many links such as mailing lists 
> and bug tracker would fall into multiple categories (support and 
> collaboration)... What anyone's thoughts on that?
I see no problem, other than potential clutter, with having one link in 
multiple places.  The items don't necessarily fall into a clean 
hierarchy.  I would rather have the main sections meet common use cases 
than to use some arbitrary grouping.

Off the top of my head, I see the following: new user, likely seeking 
information about the project; novice user, likely seeking support 
channels and documentation; experienced user, likely seeking 
documentation and bug/issue tracker.  Obviously, these are 
simplifications, but I think we should try to make the site as usable as 
possible for each group.

>> o "Contributors" seems like an informative topic and may be better 
>> placed under "About" rather than "Collaboration."
>> o I still have mixed feelings on the main content.  It's definitely 
>> improved, but for logical flow, it would seem to me that the modeler 
>> would be better placed right after the description of what Cayenne.  
>> Basically you'd go from what we are to what we can offer.  Throwing 
>> news in the middle breaks that flow and makes the modeler section 
>> seem like it's floating in no man's land.  On the other hand, pushing 
>> news to the bottom obviously makes it harder to view.
> Or maybe move the news on top - or to the right side???

Here, I can't offer much more.  I'm -1 on moving the news to the top, 
because it creates a weird order for anyone unfamiliar with the project 
(and let's face it, there's a lot of people unfamiliar with it).  I'm 
mixed on the right-hand-side, because then the primary content will get 
squished into something ridiculously small.  I'm almost inclined to 
suggest moving the news to a completely separate page, linked to on the 
main one.  This is actually what we did for the recent Servprise page 
upgrade, just to avoid clutter on the main page *shrug*


View raw message