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: [WWW] Feedback/"contact us" about the website link needed...
Date Sun, 19 Feb 2012 19:12:51 GMT
Hi Kay,

On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:17 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

> OK, update on this...a contact us page is now available at:
> http://www.openoffice.org/contact_us.html
> 
> It is VERY simple and I did what I could for incorporating the use of our
> existing Bug gateway (which I also made changes to in an attempt to cover
> the existing Bugzilla categories. As with all of the ooo-site, anyone with
> comitter rights can make changes.
> 
> Dave, please incorporate into the footer if you're doing seem editing on
> that as you see fit. Having a link next to the Copyright and Licenses seems
> fine though that is followed by a paragraph specifically related to that.


> 
> My preference would be to have "Contact Us" centered immediately below the
> footer line if possible.

I've rearranged the header and the publishing sledgehammer is running now.

Centered "Copyrights & License | Contact Us" link.
Space
Trademark statement
Space
Incubation statement.

> 
> Have fun!

Regards,
Dave

> 
> 
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:12 AM, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:48 PM, Louis Suárez-Potts <
>> lsuarezpotts@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 10 February 2012 18:52, Kay Schenk <kay.schenk@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <
>>>> dennis.hamilton@acm.org> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I agree with Kay that one reason someone may want to contact us is
>>> because
>>>>> there is a problem with the web site itself.  I also think that going
>>>>> directly to the mailing list page is perhaps too abrupt.  Some free
>>>>> analysis from the top of orcmid's head:
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> yes, really, this was my intention -- but I think Rob's calrification
>>> would
>>>> work  for that. I started wondering about this in light of the recent
>>>> communication re that bad link. How long did it take Rick to figure out
>>> who
>>>> to contact, etc. (I also know we need to get going with some reasonable
>>>> analysis tool to tract these down *beforehand* if we can) . I didn't
>>> mean
>>>> for this to be a "user centric" catchall.
>>>> 
>>>> I can certainly understand the value of a User centric FAQ in this
>>> regard.
>>>> And we may even have one!
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> For issues about the site(s) itself, I think a bottom-of-page link is
>>>>> fine.  It might go to another web page that refines the contact based
>>> on
>>>>> particular cases (two that should always be prominent and
>>> straightforward
>>>>> are for the site and for anything to do with security concerns -- but
>>> not
>>>>> directly to ooo-security.).
>>>>> 
>>>>> With user issues, taking people directly to bugzilla is effectively a
>>>>> giant FU for ordinary users.  A bullet item that links to how to file
>>> a bug
>>>>> and also links directly to bugzilla is good, so experts don't have to
>>> do
>>>>> the drill-down.  (Might need a branch for those needing a bugzilla
>>> account
>>>>> too.) [Something like this might help refine the security case as
>>> well.]
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I think you're right on this one. BZ is too daunting jut to report a
>>> link
>>>> problem unless we can implement a nicer front end to BZ just for these
>>>> cases. I will be happy to investigate this. We may even be able to do a
>>>> "proxy login" of some sort.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Then I think there can be explanation that all other support is peer
>>>>> support from other users and developer volunteers, with some indication
>>>>> about the options (wiki, forums, web site, mailing-list subscriptions,
>>> and
>>>>> bugzilla) and how to search/explore/choose among them.  This would
>>> probably
>>>>> be right after something about web site issues and security concerns.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Third tier on some of these might be FAQ that provide more detail and
>>> help
>>>>> users address common concerns.  (I.e., what to do when an AV product
>>> says
>>>>> their download is infected, what the project does to ensure the
>>> integrity
>>>>> of binaries and how to find those to be confident in them, how to check
>>>>> their authenticity, etc.  That's been going around lately.)
>>>>> 
>>>>> Finally, of course, there is always the welcoming of those who might
>>> want
>>>>> to themselves contribute to an aspect that is a concern or interest for
>>>>> them.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> yes... :) I hope this is reasonably covered in the revisions to the
>>> "Help
>>>> Wanted" page I made, but, of course, it's an ongoing process.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> I suppose I should put myself in this last category, although I am not
>>>>> prepared to figure out how to work on such a page [set]. Sorry.
>>>>> 
>>>>> - Dennis
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for the feedback from everyone, I will investigate options
>>> further.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
>>>>> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 09:43
>>>>> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>>>> Subject: Re: [WWW] Feedback/"contact us" about the website link
>>> needed...
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Rob Weir <robweir@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> [ ... ]
>>>>>> Another way to think of it:  99.99% of the time, if a user actually
>>>>>> needs to contact us, then the website has failed its purpose.  We
can
>>>>>> only handle 100 million users if, for the vast majority of cases,
>>> they
>>>>>> can self-support themselves via the website's navigation and find
>>> what
>>>>>> they want.  So the challenge here is to handle the exceptional 0.01%
>>>>>> of cases, without becoming the path of least resistance for the other
>>>>>> 99.99%.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> -Rob
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Rob--
>>>>> 
>>>>> I understand what you're saying, believe me. I guess I feel we should
>>>>> provide an easier avenue for people to report problems with the site
>>>>> itself. I'm also aware that if I just put in a simple link with a
>>> "mailto"
>>>>> tag, many folks won't be able to deal with that because they won't
>>> have a
>>>>> "default" e-mail client.
>>>>> 
>>>>> How about a "Contact Us" link that directs them to our existing
>>> "Mailing
>>>>> List" page --
>>>>> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html.
>>>>> We could add a bit more description to the "Development Mailing List"
>>> to
>>>>> indicate that it would be used for submitting questions/problems about
>>> the
>>>>> web site.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Or do you think it would be best to direct them to BZ?
>>> 
>>> Briefly: the Contact Us link usually went to me, in OOo. The traffic
>>> can be high or low; low if one does it right, and routes people
>>> appropriately. Basic rules apply: you don't answer "how-to" questions,
>>> unless you are a masochist. You answer the other, much fewer in
>>> number, questions.
>>> 
>> 
>> Hi Louis-- and thanks for this response. For now, I was going to set this
>> up as a "portal" for dealing with web site issues ONLY -- the link will be
>> called "Report Problems with the Web Site", taking users to an landing page
>> that  will initially search for all "issues" in BZ related to the web site,
>> so the user can see what's already been reported, and optionally, add to an
>> existing issue or create a new one.
>> 
>> But...it might be a good idea to also include some mention of the
>> "Support" page  on this intermediate BZ landing/search page. This should
>> take care of a great portion of the support issues. Good suggestion!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I volunteer to continue in the role I've grown mossy over.
>>> 
>> 
>> Thanks. I'm just going to set this up for BZ as previously suggested.
>> 
>> 
>>> I also think that IFF we are intending to replicate some of the
>>> friendly to endusers approach of the old OOo, then we would do well to
>>> emulate some of the pages we had:
>>> 
>>> * FAQ on simple things, like where to go with issues *using* OOo and
>>> also *building* and "developing* it. We already have much of that, so
>>> this would just be links.
>>> 
>>> * Support page: I think the old support page can simply, as is already
>>> being done, be updated and pruned. (Drew is on this, I believe?)
>>> 
>>> * License  and trademark issues: this was the more difficult one and
>>> merits for attention, at least for the more difficult questions.
>>> Others are routine, and we've discussed this already here.
>>> 
>>> Further along these lines: Even if we are not plunging into minimally
>>> addressing users (and I think we ought not to shift our shape so to
>>> max unless we actually want to), we will be dealing with the
>>> media--professional as well as "citizen" journalists. Having, as we
>>> had before, a "press kit," done in accordance with Apache, will help
>>> both us and any member of the fourth estate.
>>> 
>>> Louis
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> 
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> MzK
>> 
>> "Follow your bliss."
>>         -- attributed to Joseph Campbell
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> 
> "Follow your bliss."
>         -- attributed to Joseph Campbell


Mime
View raw message