Re: *.gnome.org partitioning draft

[Calum Benson <Calum Benson Sun COM>]

On 20 Jul 2006, at 22:34, John Hwang wrote:

> In light of the non-developer end-users,
> http://www.gnome.org/project/nautilus seems like too much information.
> "Project" has a specific meaning about nautilus and a user doesn't
> care that nautilus is a project of Gnome.  In my opinion,
> http://gnome.org/nautlius or even  http://gnome.org/programs/nautilus
> makes more sense.

Of course, nautilus is a particularly troublesome case anyway,  
because many users will potentially never know that their file  
manager is called 'nautilus' at all.  So perhaps we'd need to set up  
something like gnome.org/filemanager as well...

Cheeri,
Calum.

> On 7/20/06, Thomas Wood <thos gnome org> wrote:
> > Calum Benson wrote:
> > > On 20 Jul 2006, at 07:59, Quim Gil wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >> Ok, then we would have www.gnome.org/projects/* pages which  
> > would be
> > >> feature pages from projects, probably elaborated by the marketing
> > >> team,
> > >> while the project pages themselves would fall out of our
> > >> responsibility
> > >> and would be placed under projects.gnome.org/*
> > >>
> > >> Since we don't have project feature pages, all the current  
> > projects
> > >> should be under projects.gnome.org/* , we need to decide which  
> > feature
> > >> pages we want to have for the current release under
> > >> www.gnome.org/projects/*, and do them.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Is there really any need for the intermediate "projects" level  
> > in the
> > > URL, btw?  I always find it unbelievably convenient that the home
> > > page for every major Apple application is just http:// 
> > www.apple.com/
> > > <appname>, for example.
> > >
> > I would tend to agree here. I think it is important we have a  
> > number of
> > gnome.org branded home pages for the key applications within the
> > desktop, like apple.com does. For example, and introductory page for
> > nautilus might be at www.gnome.org/nautilus or
> > www.gnome.org/projects/nautilus. This would serve as both informative
> > and marketing to new users.
> >
> > Whenever I see projects.gnome.org it makes me think of a sourceforge
> > type site the provides hosting and other services. Do we really  
> > want to
> > be a hosting service for some (but not all) gnome related  
> > projects? Even
> > sourceforge does not have directory level urls for each project.
> > Instead, each project gets it's own sub-domain.
> >
> > If we went ahead with just moving gnome.org/projects to
> > projects.gnome.org, I don't think we would be solving any  
> > problems. The
> > only problem with /projects at the moment is that it frequently  
> > causes
> > problems with the website build. We could solve this by moving it out
> > into separate module(s). The only other problem is that the sites  
> > don't
> > follow the www.gnome.org design, but I think this is outside the  
> > scope
> > of the main www.gnome.org revamp (we need to concentrate on our  
> > content,
> > not other people's).
> >
> > I hadn't prepared a partitioning draft yet, partly because I  
> > hadn't been
> > aware my name was next to the task, but also because I can not see  
> > many
> > reasons for changing most of the current arrangement. The only  
> > changes I
> > would make would be to either update or remove  
> > developer.gnome.org, and
> > move some of the more anomalous sub-domains to other places (e.g.
> > glade.gnome.org moves to www.gnome.org/projects/glade).
> >
> > So, let's focus on sorting out our own content before we start moving
> > other things around. We will have to provide legacy links anyway, so
> > there seems little point in moving something unless we are  
> > absolutely in
> > agreement it's what we want to do.
> >
> > -Thomas

--
CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer       Sun Microsystems Ireland
mailto:calum benson sun com            Java Desktop System Team
http://blogs.sun.com/calum             +353 1 819 9771

Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems