incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Dave Fisher <dave2w...@comcast.net>
Subject Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
Date Wed, 23 Nov 2011 20:26:00 GMT
Sorry I've been in Chicago and a little out of touch. I'll be back at home Saturday and will
contribute.

Keep up the good work Kay!

+1 to Dennis

BR
Dave

Sent from my iPhone

On Nov 23, 2011, at 1:55 PM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:

> My recommendation is that everything in terms of web pages should be preserved that is
not already captured in the bugzilla, MediaWiki, and Community Forums.  
> 
> Cleanup can happen on our ooo-site SVN in anticipation of the cut-over and after the
cut-over.  The remodeling to divide up the site content and also provide adequate portal operation
from openoffice.org to the Apache OpenOffice development/project site does not have to be
completed, or even started very much, prior to cut-over.  It is something to nibble through
when there is no time-limit over our heads and the keys to the live content are in our custody.
 
> 
> - Dennis
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 08:56
> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Rationalizing two OpenOffice websites
> 
> +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".
> 
> On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 3:46 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> 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.
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged
> by the way its animals are treated."
>                              -- Mohandas Gandhi
> 

Mime
View raw message