Re: The current disscusion is good, but...

[Joakim Ziegler <joakim helixcode com>]

On Thu, Nov 16, 2000 at 10:59:54AM -0800, Ken Evans wrote:
> Maybe I'm jumping the gun here, so correct me if I'm
> wrong but isn't discussing DBs vs. CVS a step we
> aren't ready to take?  It a great discussion but I
> thought there would be a plan of action first.

> The theory goes that one of the first things we're
> suppose to do is come up with a practical requirements
> list.  At least that is the theory.  Everywhere I've
> been, they've always been rushing a deadline so this
> never happens.

A requirements list is necessary, indeed.

However, we're also trying to integrate with a number of existing efforts and
content creators, and this discussion is a direct continuation of a
discussion on gnome-hackers. Basically, just about all content in CVS is more
or less a requirement.

But you're touching on an interesting topic, which I was about to get around
to: A requirements list for the web site. I have a preliminary list myself,
but I'd like to see the suggestions of others first, and then try to compile
everything into a coherent whole.

Main issues to consider:

  * What information goes in? We should have a sizable list. I'm assuming
    a lot of the information on the current sites should go into the new
    ones, but there might also be new things.
 
  * How is the information to be accessible? A lot of the things we have are
    just basic pages, and that's fine, but there are also things that should
    be searchable, viewable by different access methods/sorting orders, etc.

  * What are the requirements on the navigational structure and page
    design/layout? This includes both usability, aestetical and browser
    compatibility issues.

  * Policies for content creation tools. This wouldn't be important in most
    projects, but it is in this case. Basically, there should be a policy on
    what goes into the site, when it comes to licensing, etc. For instance,
    the current www.gnome.org site uses Adobe Garamond Condensed for menus,
    which is a commercially licensed font. I've used my licensed copy of this
    font to create the images, but people still reacted to this. In
    retrospect, I think this was a bad decision on my part. On the other
    hand, I think it should be acceptable for people to use tools of their
    choice to create graphics, etc. (So I won't be prevented from using my
    favourite graphics tools, which happen to be proprietary).

...and probably more.

-- 
Joakim Ziegler - Helix Code web monkey - joakim helixcode com - Radagast IRC
      FIX sysop - free software coder - FIDEL & Conglomerate developer
            http://www.avmaria.com/ - http://www.helixcode.com/