I concur with the general idea, but I have no expectations that engineers will follow a style guide unless it's amazingly easy to use.
If only we could have a wiki template… ;) My thought is we pretty things up, then Kelcey (and hopefully others) help keep things looking decent. In time hopefully folks will pick up on what we want and create new content that becomes close to the ideal… John On Mar 1, 2013, at 10:07 AM, "Kelceydamage@bbits" <kel...@bbits.ca> wrote: > I'm glad people are voicing up on this. I brought it up because, that's my > primary business, websites/web apps, and to give you an example the ratio of > content artists to developers is 2.2:1. > > People make a decision in less then 30 seconds, not a lot of content can be > ready in that time, but a lot of visual and navigation can be consumed in 30 > seconds. > > The homepage and wiki is what we are marketing whether we believe it or not. > That's the first interaction, downloading and installing comes later. > > Im hoping a few more people will chime in on this, > > I would like to get a broader sense of opinions before I take any actions. > > Thanks. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 1, 2013, at 9:16 AM, Mathias Mullins <mathias.mull...@citrix.com> > wrote: > >> Folks, >> >> I think you're are both right, and they both have to be done. It's harder, >> it's longer, but it's the right and best west way to do it. The two websites >> that I personally hate the most are the ones that have great content, and >> are hard to look at and use; or the ones that are beautiful and the content >> is useless. >> >> I've only been working with the project for about 6 months and I can tell >> you from an outsider's point of view that when I first came into it, even >> being a citrix employee, it was extremely unattractive. >> >> The Quality finally has got there, and Joe is right that MUST be maintained, >> but if you really want to grow this and get people to join, Ilya is right, >> you have to have to something attractive to lure them in and keep them. >> >> Look at Openstack's page. While the content may not be super flashy or >> techno-beautiful, every page has three key compents: >> 1. Content that matches the stated purpose of the page (Quality is in the >> eye of the beholder sometimes) >> 2. The navigation is easy and user friendly >> 3. Each page is consistent and high quality standards match on every single >> page. One logo, one font, one style sheet. >> >> Isn't this the level that we are really talking about taking this too? >> >> Thank you, >> Matt >> >> On Mar 1, 2013, at 11:56 AM, "Musayev, Ilya" >> <imusa...@webmd.net<mailto:imusa...@webmd.net>> wrote: >> >> I think the *code* and *quality* of documentation mean a lot more than >> whether we have consistent colors and branding. Again - if we have anything >> that's just hideous to look upon in the wiki, we should certainly fix it. >> I'm all for quality of content and code, but we need to keep in mind that >> people tend to judge the book by its cover - especially the new comers. In >> comparison, the CS layout / usability is hands down one of the best and >> pleasant layouts I've worked with. Wiki - needs a little help - though as >> you said, should not be a high priority. >> >> >> >> > Stratosec - Secure Infrastructure as a Service o: 415.315.9385 @johnlkinsella
