Re: [libreoffice-website] Re: Libreoffice.org website dev sitrep 2011-02-02 - [Was: Work on the "Why?" pages]

Hello Bernhard,

Le Thu, 03 Feb 2011 15:12:37 +0100,
Bernhard Dippold <bernhard@familie-dippold.at> a écrit :

> Hi Charles, all,
>
> just for clarification:
>
> charles.h.schulz schrieb:
> > Hello Narayan, everyone,
> >
> > [... 6 months ...]
> >
> > Until that stage:
>
> > 1) no discussion about Drupal on this list.
> >
> > 2) no "major overhaul" of the website.
>
> But implementation of UX and Design - I can't determine if this will
> be a major or minor overhaul.

it still would be minor or considered minor imho. 

> > What this does not mean: 1) we can't change the way some of the
> > content is presented on the website. (see the wiki page for this) 2)
> > we can't improve the website in minor ways. 3) we can't fix bugs.
>
> Double negation:
> It is allowed to change the presentation of the website content.
> It is allowed to improve the website (whatever "minor ways" mean)
> It is allowed to fix bugs.

Yes. 

> > Yes, there comes a time when the website is "completed" and where
> > only incremental improvements are needed.
>
> But this goal has not been achieved. Please read Christoph's comments
> on the wiki.
>
> > Again: LibreOffice is not about a website nor about letting people
> > satisfy their passion about web design, at least not primarily.
>
> But one if it's goals is to reach people - therefore a good website
> is important.

I think no one denies that?
> > We do not want a website that keeps on changing because people think
> > their way is better. We (the SC) do not want to reopen yet another
> > thread about these topics.
>
> The website team had to hold off with their comments until the
> present website was ready. This means, that it is *now* exactly the
> time to discuss optimizations.
>
> I can't believe that you - and the entire SC - think the website
> doesn't need any improvement.

I never implied that.  I just don't want us to change the website in a
major way, that's somewhat different.

> At the moment development is going in the wrong direction (text vs 
> graphics) - and this must be allowed to discuss.
>
> > The level of energy and effort spent on
> > this topic (the website) is ridiculously high compared to what we
> > need to to work on.
>
> Right - but I hope this will settle, once the team found it's common
> way.

I'm afraid that it's been 2 to 3 months that the team is looking for a
common way...

> > We're therefore glad that there are people who
> > want to help but there comes a point where it's not helpful, because
> > someone's always pushing, pushing and always pushing. Same thing
> > with respect to the website confcall: we haven't agreed on working
> > again on overhauling the website, we haven't agreed on changing the
> > website team, which for the sake of clarity is composed of the same
> > 4 people the SC has appointed.
>
> I'm quite sure you don't mean what you wrote: The website team
> doesn't consist of 4 people only!
>
> It's a larger group - with the four people as "guides" in their 
> respective area of interest.

Yes, I believe I even wrote that these 4 persons were "community
enablers" this morning...

> This doesn't mean that their opinions are the only reasonable ones,
> they have to follow the expertise from the team (and outside experts)
> in certain cases, even if this is not what they would do when they
> had to decide on their own.

Exactly. 

> By the way: The SC decision for the four "leads" doesn't include a 
> marketing expert - perhaps this could be reconsidered (or we
> cross-post our main questions to the marketing list).

I'm sure Italo can help without cross-posting to the marketing list.


best,
Charles.


-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to website+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/website/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***