incubator-cloudstack-marketing mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mark Hinkle <>
Subject Re: Wiki visual guidlines
Date Fri, 01 Mar 2013 19:27:57 GMT
+1 on the Wiki Template ;)

I think the sentiment is right. The formatting is secondary to me. Above
all the documents themselves should be good but if they are hard to
consume that's almost as bad.

My 2+ cents: 

I feel it's confusing that we have a wiki and manuals separate. IMHO
Documentation should help lead users to the right document. I am not sure
at what point to drop the Installation Guide and go to Admin or Developers
for instance. Also having all the links to the formats are great but it
makes the navigation confusing.

This navigation experience is not great:

The Docs are listed in the left frame but it's not clear what they are all
for.  As Matt points out the end-user experience is better here:

Specifically, Once you get into the individual manuals the left side is
pretty useless the search doesn't appear to work either. I think that
might be an artifact of the Publican builds (points to a localhost

We also break out docs by release number but for release notes especially
I like to be able to view them on the same page to understand the scope of
release differences.

Of course these are just my opinions. Also I should note that a lot of
people have done good work to get the documents this far you should have
seen them a year ago :P


On 3/1/13 10:43 AM, "John Kinsella" <> wrote:

>I concur with the general idea, but I have no expectations that engineers
>will follow a style guide unless it's amazingly easy to use.
>If only we could have a wiki template҆ ;)
>My thought is we pretty things up, then Kelcey (and hopefully others)
>help keep things looking decent. In time hopefully folks will pick up on
>what we want and create new content that becomes close to the ideal҆
>On Mar 1, 2013, at 10:07 AM, "Kelceydamage@bbits" <>
> wrote:
>> 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
>> 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
>> Thanks.
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> On Mar 1, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Mathias Mullins
>><> 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"
>>><<>> 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.
>Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service
>o: 415.315.9385

View raw message