oodt-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Mattmann, Chris A (3980)" <chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov>
Subject Re: OODT Website Changes (Redux)
Date Tue, 05 Apr 2016 21:02:18 GMT
Understood, OK Tom.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Chris Mattmann, Ph.D.
Chief Architect
Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398)
NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA
Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527
Email: chris.a.mattmann@nasa.gov
WWW:  http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS)
Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department
University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA
WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++










On 4/5/16, 12:10 PM, "Tom Barber" <tom.barber@meteorite.bi> wrote:

>Yeah, I'm not suggesting we switch any time soon.
>
>My viewpoint is thus: we can do a better job with content, look and feel
>and the maintenance side.
>
>Personally, I find the CMS hard to use, maybe its just me, who knows. So,
>my suggestion is purely do some POC work to come up with what may, or may
>not be a better solution. If the workflow and tech is acceptable, then
>build out the site in the new tech, it can be demoed on GH pages or
>wherever in the interim, and finally, when we're happy with the content,
>the theme and the ability to update it, then... and only then do we change
>it.
>
>From my own opinion, I want to put some more free time into improving the
>site, but I feel that it would be a much quicker and more efficient process
>if the stuff wasn't inside CMS, that is all.
>
>Tom
>
>On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Chris Mattmann <chris.mattmann@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>> Tom, my comment here is that we tried to do the exact
>> same thing in Summer 2014 on XDATA. Just note that
>> “dummy site” is now what we have in our operational
>> site for Apache OODT. I think we have just only recently
>> come to a point where it’s more stable (we don’t have
>> people like Sebb coming externally saying our links don’t
>> work).
>>
>> Now you are proposing to change the site again, which
>> design wise is fine by me (though shows how much I know
>> since I liked SK’s old site even - and the new site started
>> by the next generation also looks nice too). However,
>> stability wise it’s not fine by me unless *the entire site*
>> is migrated, and until we run a link checker against it
>> long before turning on the switch to move over to it.
>>
>> No one is clamoring for a website redesign - it’s mostly
>> been discussion led by you and commented on by Val, and
>> Lewis.
>>
>> My 2c.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> —
>> Chris Mattmann
>> chris.mattmann@gmail.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/5/16, 8:55 AM, "Tom Barber" <tom.barber@meteorite.bi> wrote:
>>
>> >Okay here's what I propose. Apache CMS will be retired, not any time
>> soon, but at some point in the medium term future. ASF Infra offer
>> gitsubpub/svnsubpub as the standard for website publishing and we(I?) want
>> something more useable for non webdevs. Thats not necessarily code free,
>> but certainly an easy process for people to upload new content.
>> >My suggestion is that I knock up a dummy replacement site in Jekyll, that
>> migrates across a couple of the pages and some dummy blog content, and I'll
>> come back and demonstrate the user publishing flow, at which point we can
>> have a discussion as to whether its something we pursue, or not.
>> >
>> >
>> >Sound like a plan?
>> >
>> >Of course in the mean time, if anyone else has any suggestions for a
>> "dynamic" static website, speak up!
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >
>> >
>> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >Indeed Val
>> >Ease of use is something I'm trying to achieve because it makes it easier
>> for everyone to help maintain our resources with minimum effort.
>> >
>> >In Jekyll (if that was a chosen solution Markdown is entirely optional,
>> you can just as easily publish HTML content as markdown, I just mentioned
>> it as an easy barrier to get people to write blog posts, but there are a
>> bunch of HTML generating apps on the market, of you could use the WP
>> editor, and hit the source button and copy the content from WP to Jekyll,
>> not great always the most obvious workflow, but would do the job.
>> >
>> >Also, not tried it, but Prose.io gives you a MD WYSIWYG editor for
>> github, so assuming we were running the fork -> pull request model, you
>> could edit the OODT site using Prose on Github and just push over a pull
>> request with the changes made.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Prose seems to support basic formatting and inserting of images, once a
>> website template is designed I would expect contributers to do any more
>> anyway, unless they wanted to, content should be about writing a blog post
>> of page and hitting the go button.
>> >
>> >
>> >A quick google also reveals some Word to Markdown tools, I've not used
>> them either, but I guess they would do a job.
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >​
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mallder, Valerie <
>> Valerie.Mallder@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>> >
>> >You are absolutely right, in markdown you would be missing images. My
>> objection to using markdown is having to learn a new language syntax for
>> styling the text. I have no objection to having a static site. I just want
>> it to be easy to use and not require that you have to spend time learning
>> something new. If it takes too much time to do (because you have to learn
>> some new stuff in order to do it) you may find that people will put it on
>> their todo list but never end up getting to it because they are too busy
>> working on higher priority tasks in their day jobs. I think your primary
>> goal (when choosing what you want to do) should be to add as little work as
>> possible to people's plates. That's all. If there are any WYSIWYG editors
>> out there that have the option to do a "save as" to markdown format that
>> would be optimal. But I don't know if there are any.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>)
>> >________________________________
>> >From: Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi>
>> >Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 7:17:42 PM
>> >To: dev@oodt.apache.org
>> >Subject: Re: OODT Website Changes (Redux)
>> >
>> >Also, (playing devils advocate) if it's a word doc why can't you just copy
>> >and paste it into a markdown file?  The only major thing you'd be missing
>> >is any images :)
>> >
>> >Another plus to a static blogging site is, if you decide it sucks in a few
>> >years time,  you just have some html to move somewhere else,  it's just a
>> >static website,  if you decide WordPress sucked or infra said they'd host
>> >it, then down the line changed their mind,  you'd have a much bigger task
>> >on your hands.
>> >
>> >Tom
>> >On 3 Apr 2016 00:07, "Tom Barber" <tom.barber@meteorite.bi> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Hey Val,
>> >>
>> >> You can write HTML and a bunch of other stuff, but I'm trying to offer
>> up
>> >> a solution that is easy for people to deploy and develop on outside of
>> the
>> >> Apache infrastructure, and markdown, being just text is easy to deploy.
>> >> Also Wordpress etc require databases and backing infra where as Jekyll
>> is
>> >> purely static HTML by the time it is deployed.
>> >>
>> >> I have no idea if Infra would support wordpress anyway, I doubt it, when
>> >> they said they were retiring Apache CMS, it wasn't like "oh but don't
>> worry
>> >> folks, you can stand up a wordpress website", I could be wrong, but that
>> >> was my impression.
>> >>
>> >> At the end of a day, creating a blog post that looks like:
>> >>
>> >>
>> https://raw.githubusercontent.com/maciakl/Sample-Jekyll-Site/master/_posts/2012-02-10-code-snippets.markdown
>> >>
>> >> is much quicker than writing a bunch of HTML, but the Apache CMS is
>> also a
>> >> bit of a lie, because if you think you don't have to write HTML because
>> its
>> >> a CMS, you're sorely mistaken! ;)
>> >>
>> >> Tom
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Mallder, Valerie <
>> >> Valerie.Mallder@jhuapl.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> I am not familiar with Jekyll, but I disagree with using markdown. Why
>> >>> must we write in any kind of markup language? That would suck. Why not
>> just
>> >>> use a better CMS? There are plenty out there. I personally develop
>> websites
>> >>> in Wordpress. It's free and very easy to use. You can edit posts in
a
>> >>> WYSIWYG editor. You can also copy-paste from a Word doc into the post.
>> Just
>> >>> my opinion.
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >
>> >
>> >>> Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com><http://www.good.com
>> >)
>> >>> ________________________________
>> >>> From: Tom Barber <tom.barber@meteorite.bi>
>> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 6:45:21 PM
>> >>> To: dev@oodt.apache.org
>> >>> Subject: OODT Website Changes (Redux)
>> >>>
>> >>> Alright folks,
>> >>>
>> >>> Most peope who have been on the list for a while know we moved from
the
>> >>> most static of static websites to Apache CMS a while ago to allow for
>> more
>> >>> regular updating and maintenance of the website.
>> >>>
>> >>> Lewis then put a bunch of work into creating a template for the CMS
>> >>> website
>> >>> and we revamped a lot of the content, but the CMS has a bunch of issues
>> >>> both in the ease of developing a website and also in maintenance so
the
>> >>> Infra team are retiring it.
>> >>>
>> >>> My personal opinion(having done some of this in my day job, and
>> discussed
>> >>> similar on some other ASF projects) is we migrate the website to
>> gitsubpub
>> >>> and Jekyll.
>> >>>
>> >>> This will give us the ability to easily stand up the existing website
>> on
>> >>> our own laptops, or development servers make changes and deploy them.
>> Also
>> >>> without the templating system that Apache CMS enforces upon you, its
 a
>> >>> far
>> >>> quicker development cycle.
>> >>>
>> >>> Of course we could just use standard HTML & Javascript, but part
of the
>> >>> reason I'd like to use Jekyll is the fact users can create content
>> using
>> >>> Markdown syntax instead of HTML and Javascript. Jekyll is a static
>> >>> blogging
>> >>> platform, so its designed for frequent updating, and as people may have
>> >>> noticed I've been blogging OODT stuff on my personal blog because the
>> CMS
>> >>> is a pain to update.
>> >>>
>> >>> Has anyone got an opinion? It feels like we did stage one which was
>> make
>> >>> the website easier to update, but stage two is to make the process a
>> lot
>> >>> easier, and standardised.
>> >>>
>> >>> Cheers
>> >>>
>> >>> Tom
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
Mime
View raw message