Hi
On 10 February 2012 18:52, Kay Schenk <kay.sch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:30 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton < > dennis.hamil...@acm.org> wrote: > >> I agree with Kay that one reason someone may want to contact us is because >> there is a problem with the web site itself. I also think that going >> directly to the mailing list page is perhaps too abrupt. Some free >> analysis from the top of orcmid's head: >> > > yes, really, this was my intention -- but I think Rob's calrification would > work for that. I started wondering about this in light of the recent > communication re that bad link. How long did it take Rick to figure out who > to contact, etc. (I also know we need to get going with some reasonable > analysis tool to tract these down *beforehand* if we can) . I didn't mean > for this to be a "user centric" catchall. > > I can certainly understand the value of a User centric FAQ in this regard. > And we may even have one! > > >> For issues about the site(s) itself, I think a bottom-of-page link is >> fine. It might go to another web page that refines the contact based on >> particular cases (two that should always be prominent and straightforward >> are for the site and for anything to do with security concerns -- but not >> directly to ooo-security.). >> >> With user issues, taking people directly to bugzilla is effectively a >> giant FU for ordinary users. A bullet item that links to how to file a bug >> and also links directly to bugzilla is good, so experts don't have to do >> the drill-down. (Might need a branch for those needing a bugzilla account >> too.) [Something like this might help refine the security case as well.] >> > > I think you're right on this one. BZ is too daunting jut to report a link > problem unless we can implement a nicer front end to BZ just for these > cases. I will be happy to investigate this. We may even be able to do a > "proxy login" of some sort. > > >> Then I think there can be explanation that all other support is peer >> support from other users and developer volunteers, with some indication >> about the options (wiki, forums, web site, mailing-list subscriptions, and >> bugzilla) and how to search/explore/choose among them. This would probably >> be right after something about web site issues and security concerns. >> >> Third tier on some of these might be FAQ that provide more detail and help >> users address common concerns. (I.e., what to do when an AV product says >> their download is infected, what the project does to ensure the integrity >> of binaries and how to find those to be confident in them, how to check >> their authenticity, etc. That's been going around lately.) >> >> Finally, of course, there is always the welcoming of those who might want >> to themselves contribute to an aspect that is a concern or interest for >> them. >> > > yes... :) I hope this is reasonably covered in the revisions to the "Help > Wanted" page I made, but, of course, it's an ongoing process. > > >> >> I suppose I should put myself in this last category, although I am not >> prepared to figure out how to work on such a page [set]. Sorry. >> >> - Dennis >> > > Thanks for the feedback from everyone, I will investigate options further. > > >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 09:43 >> To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: [WWW] Feedback/"contact us" about the website link needed... >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> wrote: >> >> [ ... ] >> > Another way to think of it: 99.99% of the time, if a user actually >> > needs to contact us, then the website has failed its purpose. We can >> > only handle 100 million users if, for the vast majority of cases, they >> > can self-support themselves via the website's navigation and find what >> > they want. So the challenge here is to handle the exceptional 0.01% >> > of cases, without becoming the path of least resistance for the other >> > 99.99%. >> > >> > -Rob >> > >> >> Rob-- >> >> I understand what you're saying, believe me. I guess I feel we should >> provide an easier avenue for people to report problems with the site >> itself. I'm also aware that if I just put in a simple link with a "mailto" >> tag, many folks won't be able to deal with that because they won't have a >> "default" e-mail client. >> >> How about a "Contact Us" link that directs them to our existing "Mailing >> List" page -- >> http://incubator.apache.org/openofficeorg/mailing-lists.html. >> We could add a bit more description to the "Development Mailing List" to >> indicate that it would be used for submitting questions/problems about the >> web site. >> >> Or do you think it would be best to direct them to BZ? Briefly: the Contact Us link usually went to me, in OOo. The traffic can be high or low; low if one does it right, and routes people appropriately. Basic rules apply: you don't answer "how-to" questions, unless you are a masochist. You answer the other, much fewer in number, questions. I volunteer to continue in the role I've grown mossy over. I also think that IFF we are intending to replicate some of the friendly to endusers approach of the old OOo, then we would do well to emulate some of the pages we had: * FAQ on simple things, like where to go with issues *using* OOo and also *building* and "developing* it. We already have much of that, so this would just be links. * Support page: I think the old support page can simply, as is already being done, be updated and pruned. (Drew is on this, I believe?) * License and trademark issues: this was the more difficult one and merits for attention, at least for the more difficult questions. Others are routine, and we've discussed this already here. Further along these lines: Even if we are not plunging into minimally addressing users (and I think we ought not to shift our shape so to max unless we actually want to), we will be dealing with the media--professional as well as "citizen" journalists. Having, as we had before, a "press kit," done in accordance with Apache, will help both us and any member of the fourth estate. Louis
