incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Malte Timmermann <malte_timmerm...@gmx.com>
Subject Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
Date Tue, 22 Nov 2011 09:06:20 GMT
+1, makes sense to me :)

On 22.11.2011 00:46, Rob Weir wrote:
> We have with this project something that most other Apache projects
> don't have and which the legacy OOo project never had.  We have two
> independent websites.
>
> We have the legacy www.openoffice.org website, which served as an
> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
> participants.
>
> And we have the http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/, which on
> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
> http://openoffice.apache.org.  For most Apache projects their website
> also serves both purposes:  a site for users as well as project
> participants.
>
> So, we have both of these websites, and a lot of redundancy caused by
> it.  This obviously has a downside.  It makes it hard to update, since
> a lot of information is in both places.  And it confuses users since
> the websites are out of sync on some important topics.  It also
> prevents us from really optimizing the experience for each audience.
> I suspect that long-term this dual-website with overlapping content is
> not a maintainable model.
>
> What can we do?
>
> I hope I am not committing heresy if I say that most users of
> OpenOffice care as little about Apache as drinker of a Pepsi cares
> about the Board of Directors of PepsiCo Corporation.  The average user
> (and we're talking about millions of them) cares about downloading,
> installing, using, learning about and generally being productive with
> OpenOffice.  It is a tool they use to do their work. Their work is
> what matters to them, not our work.
>
> But of course we also have a growing number of users, contributors and
> committers who want to get more involved with the project. OpenOffice
> is interesting to them.  They identify with it.  They want to learn
> more than just the basics.  They are intrigued by open source.  They
> want to help.  They want to get more involved.
>
> The trick I think, is to have websites that speak to each of these
> audiences, as well as an easy/obvious way to navigate between them,
> while at the same time avoiding unnecessary cross talk and redundancy.
>
> For example, could we have something like this:
>
> 1) www.openoffice.org is the website for the OpenOffice product.  It
> is the end user site, focused on their interactions with the product.
> So download, help, extensions, support.  It is not how they interact
> with the project.  It serves the narrow focus on the product.
>
>
> 2) incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg (eventually
> openoffice.apache.org) on the other hand is where the project members
> work and where the public (includiing users) interacts with the
> project. Not the product, but the project.
>
> This dual website is quite commonly used for managing large and
> important brands.  For example, the consumer, when interfacting with
> the brand Pepsi and Pepsi products goes to:
>
> http://www.pepsi.com
>
> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another URL:
>
> http://www.pepsico.com/
>
> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.

Mime
View raw message