Re: gnome app pages (was confusingly Gnome Software Map)

[Gezim Hoxha <gezimetc shaw ca>]

On Sat, 2006-05-08 at 12:49 +0200, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> Hi,

Hi.

> 
> All right, so let's get back to basics :)

We seem to need to do this, every now and then.

> 
> Clearly, for these pages to make some sense at all, there has to be some
> added value. Let's try to enumerate these first...
> 
> - authoritative
> by this i mean it will be the hopefully best maintained and relevant
> info source on an application relevant to gnome. People will of course
> be free to create an "official" website for their app, and publish it as
> they see fit. Yet, the wgo app pages would appear in a more-or-less
> uniform fashion, with some established guidelines. It will be possible
> to make it a collaborative effort, where several people can make sure
> the page is up do date and meeting some standards.
> Perhaps the "official" web page will be more up-to-date, because
> Changelogs appear within microseconds of a release, but people browsing
> wgo/apps will hopefully get a uniform and still valid resource to
> discover gnome apps.

OK. With this, I disagree. We're basically wanting developers and/or
volunteers to duplicate the information they have about the project.
Then, when time comes, to delicately update the information (in their
"official" site and in their wgo/apps site). I don't think this will
work. I'm all about making developers lives easier and duplicating
information will not help them out, unfortunately. I know it's not good
to point out a problem without having a solution. Here is my solution:
why don't we ask developers as to what they want for their project home
page. What are they looking for in a CMS or a framework to make their
project home page development easier. Many of these developers are
coders and not web designers, if we get the gnome graphic designers to
help these guys out, it'd be great for devs, users, and ultimately for
the gnome image. Also, when you take a look at sourceforge, lots of
projects have the default look and feel of sourceforge which is
absolutely terrible and really bloated. This goes to show that [some |
most] devs don't know and don't care about web and marketing. So I'm
saying, find out what developers want from a home page system (if I may
call it that), give it to them, and expect that wgo/apps page be the
_official_ home page of the project that do choose to have a wgo/apps,
otherwise we're just duplicating effort, in my opinion. 

On top of this, if we can find a better way to integrate bugzilla and
these pages the developers, I think, would be happy. 

> In addition, it just looks more professional if you can reference a core
> gnome app by an official gnome URL, may it be on an about box, manual,
> banner, flier, blimp, super bowl, or other marketing blurb :)

Absolutely correct. However, as it's been said, users wanting to visit
the projects home shouldn't get wrist strain from typing in the URL :).

> 
> - translated
> The wgo infrastructure will offer the possibility to translate these
> pages. Arguably these will not be the first pages translated, but I
> believe it is a useful feature.

As you say, these will not be on the translators' top to-do list. If I
got to www.gnome.org/sq/epiphany and epiphany project page turns out
untranslated, this will just confuse and even frustrate me and whenever
I see "translated" in the future, I'll probably be sceptical.

> - detail and structure
> 
> we determine how such an app page is structured and what appears on it.
> This will enhance interoperability, and give a uniform appeal of all the
> pages. We cannot except this from "official" sites. (yeah, gnomefiles
> has structure, but it has a different scope, and will never have all the
> details we might need)

Agreed. But, as you'll see above, I'm saying we should take this one
step further.

> 
> - scope
> I imagine the app pages to be _not_ a "software map", that is a database
> trying to list all gnome-relevant software. And in this respect I see no
> competition with gnomefiles.org, on the contrary, an opportunity to
> cooperate.

I see no problem with competing with gnomefiles. I think we need to
preserve our image and gnome trademarks, and if that will take competing
with gnomefiles, so be it. gnomefiles has different goals than gnome. 

<snip> 

> It is also not a projects page, trac [1] style. Once we come around to
> do prgo, we can just use these project management frameworks, off the
> shelf. Their focus is to drive development efforts, and they do it well.
> They do wikis, issue tracking, project management (timelines,
> milestones, roadmaps, etc), repository integration, etc.

Why can't it be the project page. Why can't we integrate the development
efforts with the main project page? My goal is to not have duplicate
information it just clogs up the Internet tubes.

And this maybe a little off-topic, but why can't we have a "Wanted"
section in projects' homepage and tell the general public what we need
that we don't have right now. E.g.:

Wanted:
Graphic designers to make logo.

This sounds much easier and much less intimidating to a prospective
contributor then "get involved" because it's unknown whether they have
to give up X hours in their week and all that, however, a simple task
listed in main page, I think will attract more contributors.

<snip>

Anyway, once again those are my thoughts. Thanks for listening :)

-Gezim