incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Kay Schenk <>
Subject Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
Date Thu, 24 Nov 2011 17:12:35 GMT
2011/11/24 J├╝rgen Schmidt <>

> On 11/23/11 5:55 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> +1...all good, and something we had discussed early on.
>> However, as I work on porting legacy info over, I am wondering what to do
>> about the more "developer" centered areas of the site: api, sc, sw,
>> framework, external (? -- I need to look at this one), tools,porting, and
>> many others that are not really "user centered". I will load these into
>> the
>> ooo-site tree, but at some point, someone on the "developer" side should
>> really cull this out and move them to the "developer" side so we don't
>> continually deal with these areas on the "user portal".
> i also have thought about the api page and i would  like to support it in
> the future as well. Because it provides some useful stuff for macro,
> extension developers. But maybe in a simplified and reduced form.
> things i would i would like to keep
> - API reference
> - C++/Java UNO Runtime reference
> - search features into the different reference documentation as well as
> the Developer's Guide
> - links to the SDK
> - link to the API wiki pages
> Most of the content will i move into the wiki as soon as possible.
> I would really like to work with you or somebody else who knows the Apache
> framework better then i to rework the API page.
> It would be really helpful if we can find an easy way to update the
> generated reference docu without checking in thousands of files.


Everything form the old "api" site is available via --

just plain ole html...I don't think you should have any problems

> points today already in the wiki and i would
> like to redirect this page today to the api side. And in the future we can
> hopefully reactivate this page for an extension repository.
> And hopefully for templates ;-)
> Juergen
>> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, 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 website, which served as an
>>> end-user portal for OpenOffice as well as a website for project
>>> participants.
>>> And we have the**openofficeorg/<>,
>>> which on
>>> graduation probably becomes something shorter,  like
>>>  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) 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)**openofficeorg<>(eventually
>>> 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:
>>> But the person who wants to learn more about the company goes to another
>>> URL:
>>> Navigating between then is possible via a link on the page footer.
>>> But generally each site is optimized for its target audience.


"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
 by the way its animals are treated."
                              -- Mohandas Gandhi

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message