Okay, spent an hour hacking around ideas tonight, just to get a feel for things.
http://buggtb.github.io/oodt-website/ I've only messed around with a frontpage and basic blog listing. You can see what i'm trying to do in breaking it up a bunch, I still want to do make the text easier to digest, its all a bit "wordy" for a front page, but broken up with an architecture diagram I stole from one of Chris' slides gives non users a quick visual representation of what it is. Of course I could have done that in CMS, but I can assure you it was 100 times quicker locally and pushing the changes up, but as I discussed the other day that's not the whole reason, as I was wanting something that makes it easier for non technical users to contribute news and blog stuff to. https://raw.githubusercontent.com/buggtb/oodt-website/master/_posts/2016-01-04-oodt-011-released.md They are pretty straightforward, and as we found the other day, there is a github based editor for these things for those who don't want to mess with markdown. You can also submit blog posts in html and they'll be rendered just fine. I'm not trying to undo the work that was done during the rewrite and Chris mentioned his affection for SK's old site, I liked it to, my only gripe with that was the inability for easy fixes from users! Which is resolved sorta with CMS but personally I think its even easier for users with a github fork -> PR setup, which is basically what would happen with gitsubpub. https://github.com/buggtb/oodt-website I'll probably leave it at that for a while, I just wanted to play with some stuff and share it back. Tom On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 10:02 PM, Mattmann, Chris A (3980) < chris.a.mattm...@jpl.nasa.gov> wrote: > Understood, OK Tom. > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Chris Mattmann, Ph.D. > Chief Architect > Instrument Software and Science Data Systems Section (398) > NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory Pasadena, CA 91109 USA > Office: 168-519, Mailstop: 168-527 > Email: chris.a.mattm...@nasa.gov > WWW: http://sunset.usc.edu/~mattmann/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Director, Information Retrieval and Data Science Group (IRDS) > Adjunct Associate Professor, Computer Science Department > University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089 USA > WWW: http://irds.usc.edu/ > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/5/16, 12:10 PM, "Tom Barber" <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: > > >Yeah, I'm not suggesting we switch any time soon. > > > >My viewpoint is thus: we can do a better job with content, look and feel > >and the maintenance side. > > > >Personally, I find the CMS hard to use, maybe its just me, who knows. So, > >my suggestion is purely do some POC work to come up with what may, or may > >not be a better solution. If the workflow and tech is acceptable, then > >build out the site in the new tech, it can be demoed on GH pages or > >wherever in the interim, and finally, when we're happy with the content, > >the theme and the ability to update it, then... and only then do we change > >it. > > > >From my own opinion, I want to put some more free time into improving the > >site, but I feel that it would be a much quicker and more efficient > process > >if the stuff wasn't inside CMS, that is all. > > > >Tom > > > >On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Chris Mattmann <chris.mattm...@gmail.com> > >wrote: > > > >> Tom, my comment here is that we tried to do the exact > >> same thing in Summer 2014 on XDATA. Just note that > >> “dummy site” is now what we have in our operational > >> site for Apache OODT. I think we have just only recently > >> come to a point where it’s more stable (we don’t have > >> people like Sebb coming externally saying our links don’t > >> work). > >> > >> Now you are proposing to change the site again, which > >> design wise is fine by me (though shows how much I know > >> since I liked SK’s old site even - and the new site started > >> by the next generation also looks nice too). However, > >> stability wise it’s not fine by me unless *the entire site* > >> is migrated, and until we run a link checker against it > >> long before turning on the switch to move over to it. > >> > >> No one is clamoring for a website redesign - it’s mostly > >> been discussion led by you and commented on by Val, and > >> Lewis. > >> > >> My 2c. > >> > >> Cheers, > >> Chris > >> > >> — > >> Chris Mattmann > >> chris.mattm...@gmail.com > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 4/5/16, 8:55 AM, "Tom Barber" <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: > >> > >> >Okay here's what I propose. Apache CMS will be retired, not any time > >> soon, but at some point in the medium term future. ASF Infra offer > >> gitsubpub/svnsubpub as the standard for website publishing and we(I?) > want > >> something more useable for non webdevs. Thats not necessarily code free, > >> but certainly an easy process for people to upload new content. > >> >My suggestion is that I knock up a dummy replacement site in Jekyll, > that > >> migrates across a couple of the pages and some dummy blog content, and > I'll > >> come back and demonstrate the user publishing flow, at which point we > can > >> have a discussion as to whether its something we pursue, or not. > >> > > >> > > >> >Sound like a plan? > >> > > >> >Of course in the mean time, if anyone else has any suggestions for a > >> "dynamic" static website, speak up! > >> > > >> >Tom > >> > > >> > > >> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >Indeed Val > >> >Ease of use is something I'm trying to achieve because it makes it > easier > >> for everyone to help maintain our resources with minimum effort. > >> > > >> >In Jekyll (if that was a chosen solution Markdown is entirely optional, > >> you can just as easily publish HTML content as markdown, I just > mentioned > >> it as an easy barrier to get people to write blog posts, but there are a > >> bunch of HTML generating apps on the market, of you could use the WP > >> editor, and hit the source button and copy the content from WP to > Jekyll, > >> not great always the most obvious workflow, but would do the job. > >> > > >> >Also, not tried it, but Prose.io gives you a MD WYSIWYG editor for > >> github, so assuming we were running the fork -> pull request model, you > >> could edit the OODT site using Prose on Github and just push over a pull > >> request with the changes made. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Prose seems to support basic formatting and inserting of images, once a > >> website template is designed I would expect contributers to do any more > >> anyway, unless they wanted to, content should be about writing a blog > post > >> of page and hitting the go button. > >> > > >> > > >> >A quick google also reveals some Word to Markdown tools, I've not used > >> them either, but I guess they would do a job. > >> > > >> >Tom > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 1:30 AM, Mallder, Valerie < > >> valerie.mall...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > >> > > >> >You are absolutely right, in markdown you would be missing images. My > >> objection to using markdown is having to learn a new language syntax for > >> styling the text. I have no objection to having a static site. I just > want > >> it to be easy to use and not require that you have to spend time > learning > >> something new. If it takes too much time to do (because you have to > learn > >> some new stuff in order to do it) you may find that people will put it > on > >> their todo list but never end up getting to it because they are too busy > >> working on higher priority tasks in their day jobs. I think your primary > >> goal (when choosing what you want to do) should be to add as little > work as > >> possible to people's plates. That's all. If there are any WYSIWYG > editors > >> out there that have the option to do a "save as" to markdown format that > >> would be optimal. But I don't know if there are any. > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> >Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>) > >> >________________________________ > >> >From: Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> > >> >Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 7:17:42 PM > >> >To: dev@oodt.apache.org > >> >Subject: Re: OODT Website Changes (Redux) > >> > > >> >Also, (playing devils advocate) if it's a word doc why can't you just > copy > >> >and paste it into a markdown file? The only major thing you'd be > missing > >> >is any images :) > >> > > >> >Another plus to a static blogging site is, if you decide it sucks in a > few > >> >years time, you just have some html to move somewhere else, it's > just a > >> >static website, if you decide WordPress sucked or infra said they'd > host > >> >it, then down the line changed their mind, you'd have a much bigger > task > >> >on your hands. > >> > > >> >Tom > >> >On 3 Apr 2016 00:07, "Tom Barber" <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Hey Val, > >> >> > >> >> You can write HTML and a bunch of other stuff, but I'm trying to > offer > >> up > >> >> a solution that is easy for people to deploy and develop on outside > of > >> the > >> >> Apache infrastructure, and markdown, being just text is easy to > deploy. > >> >> Also Wordpress etc require databases and backing infra where as > Jekyll > >> is > >> >> purely static HTML by the time it is deployed. > >> >> > >> >> I have no idea if Infra would support wordpress anyway, I doubt it, > when > >> >> they said they were retiring Apache CMS, it wasn't like "oh but don't > >> worry > >> >> folks, you can stand up a wordpress website", I could be wrong, but > that > >> >> was my impression. > >> >> > >> >> At the end of a day, creating a blog post that looks like: > >> >> > >> >> > >> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/maciakl/Sample-Jekyll-Site/master/_posts/2012-02-10-code-snippets.markdown > >> >> > >> >> is much quicker than writing a bunch of HTML, but the Apache CMS is > >> also a > >> >> bit of a lie, because if you think you don't have to write HTML > because > >> its > >> >> a CMS, you're sorely mistaken! ;) > >> >> > >> >> Tom > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Mallder, Valerie < > >> >> valerie.mall...@jhuapl.edu> wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> I am not familiar with Jekyll, but I disagree with using markdown. > Why > >> >>> must we write in any kind of markup language? That would suck. Why > not > >> just > >> >>> use a better CMS? There are plenty out there. I personally develop > >> websites > >> >>> in Wordpress. It's free and very easy to use. You can edit posts in > a > >> >>> WYSIWYG editor. You can also copy-paste from a Word doc into the > post. > >> Just > >> >>> my opinion. > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> >>> > >> > > >> > > >> >>> Sent with Good (www.good.com <http://www.good.com>< > http://www.good.com > >> >) > >> >>> ________________________________ > >> >>> From: Tom Barber <tom.bar...@meteorite.bi> > >> >>> Sent: Saturday, April 2, 2016 6:45:21 PM > >> >>> To: dev@oodt.apache.org > >> >>> Subject: OODT Website Changes (Redux) > >> >>> > >> >>> Alright folks, > >> >>> > >> >>> Most peope who have been on the list for a while know we moved from > the > >> >>> most static of static websites to Apache CMS a while ago to allow > for > >> more > >> >>> regular updating and maintenance of the website. > >> >>> > >> >>> Lewis then put a bunch of work into creating a template for the CMS > >> >>> website > >> >>> and we revamped a lot of the content, but the CMS has a bunch of > issues > >> >>> both in the ease of developing a website and also in maintenance so > the > >> >>> Infra team are retiring it. > >> >>> > >> >>> My personal opinion(having done some of this in my day job, and > >> discussed > >> >>> similar on some other ASF projects) is we migrate the website to > >> gitsubpub > >> >>> and Jekyll. > >> >>> > >> >>> This will give us the ability to easily stand up the existing > website > >> on > >> >>> our own laptops, or development servers make changes and deploy > them. > >> Also > >> >>> without the templating system that Apache CMS enforces upon you, > its a > >> >>> far > >> >>> quicker development cycle. > >> >>> > >> >>> Of course we could just use standard HTML & Javascript, but part of > the > >> >>> reason I'd like to use Jekyll is the fact users can create content > >> using > >> >>> Markdown syntax instead of HTML and Javascript. Jekyll is a static > >> >>> blogging > >> >>> platform, so its designed for frequent updating, and as people may > have > >> >>> noticed I've been blogging OODT stuff on my personal blog because > the > >> CMS > >> >>> is a pain to update. > >> >>> > >> >>> Has anyone got an opinion? It feels like we did stage one which was > >> make > >> >>> the website easier to update, but stage two is to make the process a > >> lot > >> >>> easier, and standardised. > >> >>> > >> >>> Cheers > >> >>> > >> >>> Tom > >> >>> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> >
