incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rob Weir <>
Subject Re: Website Content plus Look and Feel Improvements
Date Tue, 05 Jul 2011 17:33:59 GMT
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 5:04 AM, Graham Lauder <> wrote:
> On Sun, 2011-07-03 at 10:23 -0700, Dave Fisher wrote:
>> On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:29 PM, Graham Lauder wrote:
>> >
>> > Much of what is on there is legacy material that could be seriously
>> > pruned.  For instance all the old Marketing material that is V2.0 and
>> > earlier could be deleted.
>> What would you do to the main site if you were starting from scratch?
> Big question, moving to Apache has one big advantage from my POV.
> (I should point out that my POV is marketing centric and is End User
> focussed rather than developer focussed.)
> With the content going onto CMS it makes it a lot easier for marketing
> content to be updated and changed as required. The Collabnet setup was
> difficult.
> The OOo web presence is huge, not just the website itself but all the
> NLC projects, the services part, maillists, forums, downloads and so on.
> Each fragment is looked after by it's own team.  There are overlaps (ie:
> Distribution and CDROM) and global projects (Renaissance, art, UX)  each
> piece has it's user base and it's client base and so the website as an
> entirety, obviously has to reflect that.

Yes, there were a lot of teams.  Everyone seemed to have an official
project title, often several ;-)

We had some earlier discussions on this.  Personally, I was proposing
that we take the opportunity to simplify.  For example, right now
we're doing all the work on ooo-dev.  At some point it will be clear,
perhaps soon, that we need an ooo-user list. And maybe a few others.
But I'd resist the urge to recreate the byzantine complexity of OOo
until we're sure that we need it.  I'm hoping we never do.

> The home page as it is now was designed originally with one overriding
> goal: "increase downloads."

Do you think this should still be the overriding goal of the homepage?

> Therefore we had to analyse our catchment, identify our user groups and
> their specific needs and patterns of usage of the Website. We then
> needed to specifically identify the Home page users and their needs.  It
> should be noted that while there is a crossover, Homepage users are a
> different set to Website users.  Regular community members tend to
> bypass the homepage because they know where they can fulfil their needs
> already, they either go straight to the wiki or the forums or docs or
> whichever part is specific to their part of the community.
> IMS We identified 5 groups that visit the Homepage.
> Casual arrivals
> People seeking a download, either for the first time or to upgrade
> Users seeking assistance
> People wishing to contribute to the community
> Developers

What is a "casual arrival"?  Is that someone arriving via a search?

Have you ever seen any traffic reports for  Or
something like Google Analytics, that would show how the web site is
being used currently?

> Each of these groups have entirely different needs.  The original home
> page tried to cater for all these different groups and ended up doing it
> badly.  My intention for the homepage was to have each of these groups
> headed to wherever they needed to be on the website within 15 seconds.
> We did that by reducing the number of decisions and introducing the
> "Action Statements". (There were over 120 links on the original homepage
> we reduced them to about 15, not including those in the news column.)
> Did it achieve More Downloads? as far as I know, yes. Louis would be
> better informed on this. A lot of debate went on with regard to the
> concept of the "Action Statements", over many months, but once the web
> team were onside the results were, to my eyes, spectacular.
> (Just for amusements sake
> was my
first rather amateurish mockup which the website team, Maarten, Kay, Ivan and others turned
into .)
> So the homepage is simply a portal, a signpost that is geared to cater
> to the Unsophisticated End User.  These people require simplicity,
> continuity and a feeling of security and it is only this group that the
> warmth and comfort of would be significant or
> necessary.
> So, keep the home page as is or find someway to get the CMS to display
> it, action statements intact at least.
> Then to my mind the only subs to the OOo domain that I would think that
> would be compulsory would be:
> and
> and the NLC subdomains
> The rest of the website could happily exist under

This is close to what I was proposing.  Move the project-centric
services and content, the stuff that project volunteers access most,
to the Apache address.  But keep as the public-facing,
user-facing portal for the product.

> Cheers
> for now
> GL
>> Regards,
>> Dave
>> >
>> > Argument could be made for the marketing material to start from scratch.
>> > Personally I'd like to see a whole new branding and get shot of the old
>> > stuff, make the first Apache release: V4.0 (Historically, significant
>> > global change has meant a whole number change in the version: V2 new
>> > codebase, V3 Apple compatibility. I think this is significant enough:
>> > pre V4 = LGPL license, V4 and later = ALV2)  From a marketing POV it
>> > gives us a handle to hang a campaign on.
>> >
>> > Cheers
>> > GL
>> >
>> > --
>> > Graham Lauder,
>> > MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ
>> >
>> >
>> > Migration and training Consultant.
>> >
>> >
>> >

View raw message