cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Kelceydamage@bbits" <kel...@bbits.ca>
Subject Re: Wiki visual guidlines
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2013 18:07:22 GMT
I'm glad people are voicing up on this. I brought it up because, that's my primary business,
websites/web apps, and to give you an example the ratio of content artists to developers is
2.2:1.

People make a decision in less then 30 seconds, not a lot of content can be ready in that
time, but a lot of visual and navigation can be consumed in 30 seconds.

The homepage and wiki is what we are marketing whether we believe it or not. That's the first
interaction, downloading and installing comes later.

Im hoping a few more people will chime in on this,

I would like to get a broader sense of opinions before I take any actions.

Thanks.

Sent from my iPhone

On Mar 1, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mullins@citrix.com> wrote:

> Folks,
> 
> I think you're are both right, and they both have to be done. It's harder, it's longer,
but it's the right and best west way to do it. The two websites that I personally hate the
most are the ones that have great content, and are hard to look at and use; or the ones that
are beautiful and the content is useless.
> 
> I've only been working with the project for about 6 months and I can tell you from an
outsider's point of view that when I first came into it, even being a citrix employee, it
was extremely unattractive.
> 
> The Quality finally has got there, and Joe is right that MUST be maintained, but if you
really want to grow this and get people to join, Ilya is right, you have to have to something
attractive to lure them in and keep them.
> 
> Look at Openstack's page. While the content may not be super flashy or techno-beautiful,
every page has three key compents:
> 1. Content that matches the stated purpose of the page (Quality is in the eye of the
beholder sometimes)
> 2. The navigation is easy and user friendly
> 3. Each page is consistent and high quality standards match on every single page. One
logo, one font, one style sheet.
> 
> Isn't this the level that we are really talking about taking this too?
> 
> Thank you,
> Matt
> 
> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "Musayev, Ilya" <imusayev@webmd.net<mailto:imusayev@webmd.net>>
wrote:
> 
> I think the *code* and *quality* of documentation mean a lot more than whether we have
consistent colors and branding. Again - if we have anything that's just hideous to look upon
in the wiki, we should certainly fix it.
> I'm all for quality of content and code, but we need to keep in mind that people tend
to judge the book by its cover - especially the new comers. In comparison, the CS layout /
usability is hands down one of the best and pleasant layouts I've worked with. Wiki - needs
a little help - though as you said, should not be a high priority.
> 
> 
> 
> 

Mime
View raw message