All, There was a meeting on IRC earlier today to discuss ideas for overhauling the website. I wasn't able to join for the whole meeting but I did leave my IRC client running to capture the meeting. In line with the principle that all discussions which lead to decisions must sooner or later be discussed on the mailing list, and for the benefit of those unable to join, below is a transcript of the meeting.
[We should really be using ASFBot to make minutes of meetings on the IRC channel but it appears that I do not have permission to do so. I will now try to find out how to resolve that, and next time ASFBot should be able to prepare meeting minutes in a more presentable way.] [16:01:53] *<alx>* hi @channel - website discussion? [16:02:22] *m4rkmckenna* (~m4rkmcken@212.250.191.72) joined the channel. [16:02:35] *Thomas* (57f64e2e@gateway/web/freenode/ip.87.246.78.46) joined the channel. [16:02:40] *<geomacy>* that time already!? [16:02:58] *<Thomas>* Looks like it, already 4pm [16:02:58] Thomas is now known as *Guest11370* [16:03:04] *<alx>* indeed - the week is almost over [16:03:45] *<alx>* so the things i'm thinking we cover [16:03:48] *<alx>* - Thomas's work [16:04:01] *<alx>* - search [16:05:09] *tbouron* (~thomasbou@87.246.78.46) joined the channel. [16:05:10] *<alx>* - getting started improvements [16:05:13] *<alx>* - what other snazzy things we can do (ascii cinema? graphics?) [16:05:20] *<alx>* anything else? [16:05:40] *<geomacy>* sounds comprehensive... [16:05:52] *<tbouron>* sounds good to me [16:06:30] *<alx>* cool [16:06:45] *<alx>* so item 1, thomas's work= [16:06:59] *<alx>* https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/ [16:07:24] *<richarda_>* *ASFBot*: meeting start [16:07:25] *<ASFBot>* You don't have enough karma for this request [16:07:33] *richarda_* (~richar...@ipv4nat.frontiertown.uk) left IRC. (Quit: Textual IRC Client: www.textualapp.com) [16:07:44] *richardasf* (~richar...@ipv4nat.frontiertown.uk) joined the channel. [16:07:45] Topic is *Apache Brooklyn project *https://brooklyn.apache.org*. LOGGED to *https://gitter.im/brooklyncentral/brooklyn [16:07:45] Set by *richarda_* on 4 February 2016 at 15:20:24 GMT [16:07:45] Mode is *+cnt* [16:07:49] *<richardasf>* *ASFBot*: meeting start [16:07:50] *<ASFBot>* You don't have enough karma for this request [16:07:51] *<alx>* i really like the cleanup [16:08:06] *andreaturli* (~andrea...@93-61-99-89.ip146.fastwebnet.it) joined the channel. [16:08:19] *Justin__* (b213d2a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.178.19.210.162) joined the channel. [16:08:36] *<andreaturli>* hello [16:08:39] *<geomacy>* +1 [16:08:46] *<andreaturli>* is the website discussion happening here? [16:08:49] *<alx>* tend to agree on home page as you scroll it would be nice to see Apache Brooklyn in the header [16:08:52] *<alx>* *andreaturli* yes [16:08:57] *<andreaturli>* oh ok, thanks [16:09:24] *<alx>* not sure if the feather could shrink and logo appears, so that it looks like the other pages once you've scrolled down a bit [16:09:25] *<tbouron>* that’s not an issue, I can remove the feather and always display the apache brooklyn logo [16:09:49] *<andreaturli>* +1 *tbouron* as I've already said on the mailing list [16:09:51] *<alx>* it's nice _not_ having apache brooklyn in both the header and the jumbotron when you land [16:10:08] *<tbouron>* Agree, that’s what I replied to Andrea [16:10:11] *<alx>* not sure how easy it is to do that morph tho *tbouron* [16:10:38] *<geomacy>* is it not possible to just leave it looking exactly the same as the other pages, i.e. with feather and Apache Brooklyn [16:10:50] *<geomacy>* but feather is just a bit smaller?\ [16:10:53] *<tbouron>* we need to put something there to “fill” the room. I was thinking SVG animation [16:10:56] *<alx>* but then it says apache brooklyn twice due to the jumbotron *geomacy* [16:10:57] *Justin__* (b213d2a2@gateway/web/freenode/ip.178.19.210.162) left the channel. [16:11:35] *drigodwin* (~drigod...@129.53.125.91.dyn.plus.net) joined the channel. [16:11:38] *<geomacy>* hm suppose that looks poor, fair enough [16:11:41] *<richardasf>* FTR, according to https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/pmcs "Projects may may choose to use the Apache feather in their logo if they wish" - so it's not compulsory that we give the feather a prominent place on the homepage. [16:11:58] *<andreaturli>* something easy like http://cassandra.apache.org/ ? [16:12:01] *<tbouron>* good to know richard, thanks [16:12:22] *<richardasf>* Actually the Apache visual identity changed recently and there's a new feather - https://www.apache.org/foundation/press/kit/#links [16:12:22] *<geomacy>* one small point related to the three items at the bottom of the page [16:12:34] *justinThompson* (~justinTho@178.19.210.162) joined the channel. [16:12:40] *<alx>* personally i love how the landing page works and how the subsequent pages look in thomas's rework, with the feather and all [16:13:10] *<alx>* richardasf i think *tbouron* is using the new feather already [16:13:36] *<alx>* my comment is just a minor one, it would be nice on landing page if you scroll down if the top could morph to mention brooklyn [16:13:54] *<alx>* if that's hard then we just go with what *tbouron* has done [16:13:59] *<alx>* methinks [16:14:00] *<andreaturli>* good suggestion *alx* that will be ideal I think [16:14:01] *<geomacy>* minor point, could we ensure the three items at the bottom of the page each contain useful links to the reference pages where each aspect is explained in detail [16:14:07] *<andreaturli>* especially on small screens [16:14:27] *<geomacy>* there are various websites like this (not mentioning any by name!) that contain the marketing veiw [16:14:29] *<geomacy>* view [16:14:47] *<geomacy>* but fail to provide links to the 'meat' that lets you figure out what it really means [16:14:55] *<geomacy>* from a developer point of view; which is very frustrating [16:15:41] *<alx>* as for the bottom section i think "get in touch" through those 3 mechanisms isn't the best closing call to action for someone who has scrolled to the bottom [16:16:01] *<tbouron>* I’m not following your point *geomacy*, what are you talking about exactly? [16:16:28] *<geomacy>* the three columns/panels labelled "Use Apache brooklyn for …" [16:16:35] *<andreaturli>* speaking of which, we should probably rethink about the Documentation section: the navigation is quite hard and the lack of a search bar make it even more difficult [16:16:56] *<geomacy>* agreed [16:17:08] *<alx>* *geomacy* are you talking the bottom section or the "use brooklyn for..." section ? [16:17:08] *<tbouron>* I also plan to do that in a following PR Andrea [16:17:14] *<geomacy>* the "Use Apache brooklyn for …" [16:17:21] *<andreaturli>* wow *tbouron*, you read my mind! [16:17:57] *<andreaturli>* are you looking at things like readthedocs or maybe we don't want to introduce another technology? [16:18:09] *<tbouron>* I actually already searched last night for the search feature, there is https://cse.google.co.uk/cse/all whcih can be completely customised to match our branding [16:18:25] *<alx>* right *geomacy*, those sections should be links, or at least have links [16:18:31] *<geomacy>* so under Modellng there is a link to components, but it would be good to add a link to the first word to pages explaining blueprints etc. [16:18:37] *<geomacy>* but no links in the other sections [16:18:55] *<geomacy>* e.g. the list of policies could link to the reference pages for each [16:18:57] *<alx>* that seems a v good idea [16:19:34] *<geomacy>* "Monitor" could be linked to https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/v/latest/start/managing.html [16:19:35] *<geomacy>* and so on [16:19:35] *<tbouron>* that’s not an issue, I can add links if you wish *geomacy*. I just tool what was already there. Didn’t reword that [16:20:19] *<geomacy>* +1 to suggestion from @*andreaturli* [16:20:59] *<alx>* what about the bottom section of landing page ? [16:21:12] *<tbouron>* But remember that the point is to be super simple. A new user need to be able to grasp what brooklyn is for in 5 -10 secs otherwise one will it brush away. That’s why most of the landing page are now super simple with a very clear tagline, which I tried to achieve with the “Your application, any clouds…. " [16:21:25] *<alx>* +1 *tbouron* [16:21:51] *<andreaturli>* I like your thinking, *tbouron* [16:22:29] *<geomacy>* *alx* do you mean that a "get in touch" section is not "compelling" enough as the last panel? [16:22:45] *<geomacy>* i.e. either drop it or replace it with something more impressive? [16:23:03] *<alx>* *geomacy* feels like it should be one of the three columns, not all three columns [16:23:10] *<tbouron>* re readthedocs, I’m not sure I like this solution as you are tied to an external service. I think we can improve a lot our docs ourselves [16:23:52] *<alx>* also i notice we've lost the twitter / irc / github icons from the header [16:24:00] *<alx>* -1 readthedocs [16:24:28] *<andreaturli>* no-new-tech-please *alx* ? [16:25:17] *<alx>* we do a lot of smarts to deal with multiple versions and formatting and clipboards etc that readthedocs will very likely lose [16:25:33] *<tbouron>* re social icons: we didn’t loose them, there are now at the bottom :) Currently, there is no room for more things in the menu. I wanted to reduce the number of menu items but it was not in the scope of my PR [16:25:45] *<andreaturli>* I've seen that in many sites, for example http://hyperledger-fabric.readthedocs.io/en/latest/index.html and it looked good to me. *tbouron* it is based on sphinx and I think you can install it on-premise [16:25:47] *<alx>* i'm a big believer in the devil we know [16:26:17] *<alx>* *tbouron* social icons aren't present at all once you've left the first page [16:26:44] *<alx>* not saying that's a bad thing necessarily however [16:27:28] *<tbouron>* I don’t think that’s important TBH. I the community feels like it should be there, then I think the more appropriate place for them is the footer, not the header [16:27:47] *<alx>* no strong feelings for that [16:28:28] *<alx>* i think a "Learn More" column would be useful on the front page [16:28:36] *<tbouron>* Would be interesting to have the stats but in my experience, the click rate on these icons are super small [16:29:02] *<alx>* what if the bottom section were reworked to have three columns as follows [16:29:42] *<alx>* - Learn More - You can [see what a blueprint looks like] or view the [feature list]. [16:30:13] *<tbouron>* So since we are talking about the main menu, my plan to to group “learn more” and “getting started” together, grouping “community” and “developpers” and keep documentation so we end up with only 4 items [16:30:38] *<alx>* - Join the Community - Ask us questions on [IRC] or [Stack Overflow], or [view the mailing list] or [write to the mailing list]. [16:30:53] *<alx>* - (and one more?) [16:31:13] *<alx>* *tbouron* good topic - i think community and developers could be combined [16:31:29] *<alx>* not sure about "learn more" vs " get started" -- think those are to two very different audiences [16:31:51] *<alx>* learn more is for people who want to read about, whereas get started is users [16:32:50] *<tbouron>* Disagree. Thoses sections are for beginners in brooklyn and I see the “Learn more” as a deeper first explanation of Brooklyn concepts [16:32:54] *<andreaturli>* *alx*: I don't think this separation is immediately clear [16:33:15] *<alx>* (returning to panels in the bottom section, third one) - Get Started - Write and launch your first blueprint, and see the deployment and management capabilities of Brooklyn. [16:34:17] *<tbouron>* You already have a link to this section on the “Get started” section Alex [16:35:13] *<alx>* *tbouron* website should be optimized towards people who are new to brooklyn, shouldn't it? which means we shouldn't make that a single user category. i think there's a big split between people who just want to get their hands dirty vs people who want to read about it. [16:35:17] *<andreaturli>* I think we should find a place in the landing page for this https://tbouron.github.io/brooklyn-docs/learnmore/blueprint-tour.html [16:36:54] *<tbouron>* I sort of agree but I usually go to the documentation when I want to get my hands dirty, not “learn more”. Do you have any example websites which do that? [16:36:58] *<alx>* that's another idea -- we could just make the landing page really long, containing that embedded, and containing also some nifty graphics for deploy and manage (maybe asciicinema showing `br deploy` then `br apps` ?) [16:37:10] *<andreaturli>* similar to https://www.terraform.io/ ? [16:38:01] *<andreaturli>* I don't want to give the impression that modeling-deploying-managing is something sequential tho [16:38:12] *<andreaturli>* like it seems reading terraform.io [16:38:38] *<alx>* *tbouron* HL has "key concepts", TF has "intro". i think it's quite common that sites have a gentle intro separate to the thorough documentation. that's what Learn More is. [16:38:49] *<andreaturli>* that's why I think the blueprint-tour or something similar is good to highlight the 3 main features at once [16:39:06] *<alx>* *andreaturli* except blueprint tour doesn't capture in-life aspect [16:39:17] *<alx>* or maybe it does ... i guess it's sort of implicit ? [16:40:09] *<andreaturli>* I think so, we should capture that somehow as well, but I think you got my idea [16:40:38] *<justinThompson>* it feels to me like there is a bit of a step missing between “Use Apache brooklyn for …” and “getting started“ [16:40:41] *<andreaturli>* it's probably more a circular graph where node are modelling, deploying and managing [16:40:57] *<andreaturli>* nodes* [16:41:36] *<alx>* the circle is a bit hackneyed isn't it? plus, it's not obvious you go from manage -> model. [16:42:06] *<alx>* to me it is roughly sequential, to begin with, but then it can go in any order [16:42:28] *<justinThompson>* are we missing some kind of hook? like a nice easy demo video [16:42:31] *<alx>* it does feel like we need something snazzier [16:42:36] *<alx>* +1 *justinThompson* [16:42:55] *<alx>* either explanatory graphics for the "model / deploy / manage" as thomas has laid them out [16:43:09] *<alx>* or insert the blueprint tour as a new section [16:43:20] *<alx>* and/or have an ascii cinema showing what you can do in terms of deploying [16:43:41] *<tbouron>* … and we go back to a complicated landing page which we tried to avoid in the first place [16:44:52] *<justinThompson>* well are we over simplifying if we cant get all the information across? [16:45:01] *<alx>* *tbouron* i think the complexity stems from the fact that to understand what brooklyn does required a lot of reading and even then it wasn't clear [16:45:15] *<alx>* your work makes the page more attractive but it doesn't address that [16:45:45] *<alx>* it makes getting started easier which is a big help [16:45:53] *<alx>* but we need to get the message across better [16:46:08] *<justinThompson>* +1 *alx* [16:46:30] *<justinThompson>* i think thats the crux [16:46:54] *<alx>* the blueprint tour is effective, but i agree it's very complex [16:47:13] *<justinThompson>* and on the homepage you dont even know why you want a blueprint tour [16:47:55] *<tbouron>* agree to clarify the message but disagree to do it by adding complex elements such as the blueprint tour. I tihnk this should stay where it current is [16:48:32] *<alx>* fair enough [16:48:41] *<alx>* how do we get the clear message out then? [16:48:42] *<andreaturli>* looking around for inspiration: https://kubernetes.io/ is not great as well in get the message across, I think [16:49:22] *<andreaturli>* but the interactive tutorial idea looks good [16:49:45] *<alx>* if you have sufficient cache IE you are google then you can get pretty far without making your message clear :) [16:50:26] *<tbouron>* Maybe the 3 column layout is not right. Maybe we need something with a bit more text but with a layout a la kubernetes, i.e alternate image/text [16:51:09] *<justinThompson>* and with kubrenetes people are in a slightly different mind frame, they are prepared to dig through and spend a bit more time because its kubrenetes [16:51:12] *<tbouron>* andreatruli you will note that their interactive tutorial is not on the landing page ;) [16:51:20] *<alx>* kub site could be a good one to follow [16:51:49] *<alx>* feels like we need more but simpler elements on the landing page [16:51:56] *<andreaturli>* true *tbouron*, I was trying to re-use what we have to help the message [16:52:18] *<alx>* not saying we've solved the issue but as a direction to work in i think that's a good one [16:52:32] *<alx>* folks want to continue some brainstorming on that front offline ? [16:53:11] *<alx>* couple other topics... [16:53:15] *<alx>* - search [16:54:02] *<tbouron>* I actually already searched last night for the search feature, there is https://cse.google.co.uk/cse/all whcih can be completely customised to match our branding [16:54:22] *<alx>* we need to fix this -- IE searching in the documentations. i don't think much time has been spent making this work well. *tbouron* can you see whether we can make more elegant use of google search, prefer latest version, present results more nicely and easier to use, etc ? [16:54:34] *<alx>* not picking on you but it sounded like you had started [16:54:38] *<alx>* snap [16:54:41] *<alx>* great :) [16:54:54] *<tbouron>* Yeah, integrate this will be simple enough [16:55:03] *<alx>* next topic ... getting started improvements [16:55:36] *<alx>* i think we should use a pure-bash example for getting started, instead of the magic hidden TomcatServer [16:55:52] *<geomacy>* +1 [16:56:17] *<tbouron>* +1. should also use pure YAML blueprint (that’s probably what you are referring too *alx*) [16:56:46] *<andreaturli>* +1 [16:57:01] *<alx>* maybe using templates 1-4 in brooklyn-cli/src/main/resources/catalog.bom ? [16:57:13] *<alx>* or maybe writing something new along similar lines ? [16:58:09] *<alx>* someone want to think on that and propose something on the list ? [16:58:27] *<andreaturli>* back to the landing page I think as *geomacy* said we should make modeling-deploying-managing simply links with some more graphics and replace entirely the text there, as personally I think it's too much for a landing page and not enough to explain properly. [16:59:01] *<andreaturli>* for example we should introduce `blueprint` before we use it later in the landing page "Congratulation! Next, let's deploy a blueprint." [17:00:06] *<justinThompson>* +1 [17:00:30] *<tbouron>* Wouldn’t it be a bit odd to have only titles without helper text below? Also blueprint is currently introduced in the “Modeling” block [17:00:35] *<alx>* kubernetes.io was nice in that it was rather a good mix of what and why on the landing page [17:00:55] *<alx>* i think the text is just too dense (tp [17:01:01] *<alx>* (typical, as i wrote it) [17:01:22] *<justinThompson>* and can we just call it an application instead of a blueprint at this point? [17:01:42] *<justinThompson>* even just for the link [17:01:51] *<alx>* blueprint is a good word -- i think we want to OWN the idea of blueprints [17:02:09] *<alx>* but maybe a la k8s page we make it a headline in a section describing what we're about [17:02:35] *<justinThompson>* its just at this point do people connect blueprints with applications? [17:03:01] *<tbouron>* “Blueprints describe your application” => Sounds reather clear to me [17:03:02] *<alx>* we do have to get across that you're blueprinting an application, or maybe just infrastructure [17:03:03] *<justinThompson>* maybe like you say we need to make that cleared rather than changing it to applications [17:03:28] *<alx>* if it isn't clear what we're blueprinting we've failed :) [17:03:46] *<alx>* i gotta go soon -- so homework, thomas on search, and all of us on different mockups for the landing page, trying to make clearer what we do [17:04:17] *<andreaturli>* do we have a good wireframe online tool to use? [17:04:28] *<andreaturli>* not really good with those things but I'd like to help [17:04:29] *<alx>* good chat - a bit of a random walk but i think it is needed because it isn't an easy thing to solve [17:04:38] *<geomacy>* Folks are we concentrating too much on the front page? [17:04:39] *<alx>* TY all [17:04:48] *<geomacy>* The front page is important but I think the deeper issue about the docs is the overall structure and coverage [17:04:48] *<geomacy>* of the docs in total, just fixing up the front page is only the start of what we need to do. [17:05:01] *<geomacy>* Worth pursuing on the mailing list? [17:05:35] *<alx>* *geomacy* yes, continue on ML -- I think the front page and the first example are the two most important things to improve [17:06:06] *<alx>* if they do the job, we're good, and if they don't, we're in trouble :) ... so no, i don't think we're concentrating too much there! [17:06:48] *<alx>* there's a lot more we could do but people aren't going to leave/stay because community and developers are two different menu items vs one [17:07:02] *<alx>* responding to biggest complaint i hear which is "i don't get wtf you do" ! [17:07:25] *<andreaturli>* could we expand modeling into `modeling your application` and so on and remove `Use Apache Brooklyn for ...` ? [17:07:42] *<tbouron>* *geomacy* +1 but I deliberately reduced the scope of my work, otherwise, the changes were going to be too big [17:07:54] *DuncanG* (~duncangra@87.246.78.46) left IRC. (Ping timeout: 258 seconds) [17:08:07] *<tbouron>* I plan to address the overall structure after this work [17:09:18] *<geomacy>* of course [17:09:25] *<geomacy>* step by step1 [17:10:23] *<ASFBot>* GitHub: ahgittin opened a pull request: Cleanup search paths - https://github.com/apache/brooklyn-server/pull/646 [17:10:58] *<alx>* bfn + thx all [17:11:06] *<tbouron>* I have to go folks, ttyl
