Website Proposal [Was TWiki status]

Craig Colton meerkats at bellsouth.net
Thu Dec 9 15:52:15 PST 2004


On Wednesday 08 December 2004 10:53 pm, Jeremy Utley wrote:

> >
> >Hmm.........it does have a certain simplicity. It's a far cry, however
> > from the beauty of the present site when its firing on all cylinders. I
> > can see the wisdom in not exposing the visitor to needless clutter, but
> > my first impression (warranted or not) is that it lacks content.
>
> Beauty?  The #1 complaint I see on IRC about the website is that finding
> information is NOT intuitive.  Much of that stuff could be merged
> together into one page...the entire LFS part of the project shouldn't
> need more than 5 or 6 pages outside the book to get the information
> needed across.

This sounds like your personal opinion.
>
> >I won't get into the wiki or "not wiki" thing, but the overhaul of the
> > website a year (more?) or so ago was an ambitious and worthy project. An
> > attempt to turn the stale static page into something dynamic. Something
> > not only interesting to new visitors, but also where frequent visitors
> > might find something new.
>
> And that's the whole problem - the website SHOULD NOT be there to
> provide information for frequent visitors - that's what being subscribed
> to the LFS mailing lists or news server is for, or that's what coming on
> IRC is for.
>

That's another opinion. Mine is that a proper website should serve both new 
and frequent visitors.

> >These changes were accompanied with standard compliant code that
> > incorporated tasteful and clever site navigation features and colors. The
> > fact that it is complex is not suprising in this context.
>
> Standards compliant code that broke on the most common browser today,
> and it took forever, and a lot of work by someone *NOT* part of the
> website team to fix the problem.

I viewed the sight in Internet Explorer, Firefox, Opera, and Konqueror and 
can't remember having a problem - ever. 
>
> >Don't lose sight of the fact that the old website was overhauled for a
> > reason. I've always seen the new site as a great improvement  - I'd
> > rather not see it go back.
> >
> >Disclaimer: I am not involved in any way in active maintenence of the
> > website. Anything I may say should be seen through this filter.
> >

I guess this is all mostly moot now. I watched how Jeroen and others like 
Anderson put a tremendous amount of work into the website and displayed a 
great community spirit. I can't help feeling like someone got the short end 
of the stick. 

Regards,
Craig



More information about the website mailing list