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 13:11:46 GMT
Aristedes Maniatis wrote:
>> o We should probably have the 1.1 documentation on the site.  This 
>> could be marked as a legacy release.  1.2 is still fairly young, 
>> however, so we should make it easy for those still using 1.1 to get 
>> appropriate support.
> Hands up anyone using 1.1... thought so... :-)
> If people want 1.1, it is trivial to add one more line.
I know I've been expounding usability for current users, but this one is 
actually a matter of perception.  We want to create the feeling that we 
support older releases, which is an important feature.  The Tapestry 
community has had a lot of in-fighting lately, because each new release 
seems to break everything with the previous one.  Long-term support is 
something people need to consider when choosing a product for a 
project.  Neither 1.2 nor 2.0 are all that old.  So, we either look like 
we don't support older versions or that we're a newish project.  I don't 
believe either is an adequate representation of the project.  In either 
event, Andrus has chimed in with his suggestions.

>> 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.
> I think the 'stable' wording makes that clear.
Never underestimate how little people will read.
> Fact is that right now in Cayenne development, most people should be 
> looking at 3.0 to understand what is going on. Later as the project 
> development slows down and more people are just using it without 
> getting involved in the project, I'd agree that development type 
> things could become much less prominent. But I think we should make a 
> big deal of the new 3.0 docs for instance - lots of interesting 
> information there.
Correct, but 3.0 is going through a lot of changes.  It is not 
recommended for production use.  So, I think it's important to show 
people what's coming and even let others test the waters.  But, it 
should not be what we're promoting for production work.

> There is a very fine line between support and documentation then. I'd 
> not want to start mixing the two up. FAQ is documentation, but also 
> support.
Eh, I don't necessarily agree.  No one writes a FAQ until they've had to 
field the question a few times through a support channel.  Otherwise, it 
wouldn't be a FAQ.  So, it's documentation in the sense that it's 
written, but I think it clearly is support.  There's probably little 
value in arguing over it though.
> I think it is impossible to get three people to agree on the best 
> classification system. However, as long as we have a system that makes 
> sense and once you've read the navigation once or twice you 
> instinctively can find things, then it will work OK.
We really want to have a system that allows a user to find what he needs 
on the first pass.  I'll refer to the Tapestry project again.  With T4, 
they completely redid the Web page, making it ridiculously difficult to 
find information.  Things were laid out very oddly and hidden under 
collapsible sections.  Even after knowing what was where, it was 
cumbersome to use.  Now, I'm not suggesting we're anywhere close to that 
-- the navigation is quite good actually -- but I wouldn't rely on 
people just becoming accustomed to it either.  I think organization by 
user type would be our best bet, as outlined elsewhere in this thread.
> Really, right now we have exactly one item that belongs in 'support' 
> and nowhere else. We could pinch mailing lists and put them there too, 
> so we will have two items, but only by removing mailing lists from 
> collaboration where they belong.
Not necessarily.  I'm unaware of any rule that states you can't have 
multiple links to the same item in different places ;-)

>> o "Contributors" seems like an informative topic and may be better 
>> placed under "About" rather than "Collaboration."
> Yet, by that criterion everything is 'about' Cayenne. I wanted to 
> unclutter the About section as much as possible since that is where 
> people start. Contributors (while crucial to the project) are of 
> secondary consideration to a new visitor.
Perhaps not "About", but I wouldn't put it under "Collaboration."  Every 
other item under that section is interactive in one way or another.  A 
list of contributors is not, however.

> I hear what you are saying, but I can't see that either of your 
> proposals is better. I don't want news to disappear down the bottom, 
> but I think the site needs to start with the 'what is cayenne' 
> paragraphs.
> I really don't think it is so bad as is, you'll get used to it.... :-)
Heh, I'm less concerned about me and more concerned about casual users.  
The people that are interested in learning a bit about Cayenne.  Given 
that I can't offer much more than I have in other messages in this 
thread, however, I'll step aside on this one -- at least until I think 
of something :-P


Kevin Menard
Servprise International, Inc.
"Remote reboot without pulling the plug" --

View raw message