I agree we should continue this work and get the website updated ASAP. Overall I like the style a lot, I think it's a big improvement.
Organizationally I find a couple things a bit odd. I like the idea of calling out 3 or 4 important things and emphasizing them on the main page as you've done, but the categories seem a little bit random from a certain perspective: "APIs", "Brokers", "Proton", and "Project" are all kind of different classes of thing, but you get the feeling they should be comparable somehow. There's also a bit of a disconnect between what happens on the left side of the horizontal divider and what happens on the right side, e.g. which download corresponds to which APIs is not clear. The multi component nature of qpid is not clear, e.g. the page only offers one link to source control and one link to JIRA that defaults to QPID-, when in fact we have two repos, two JIRA instances, etc. --Rafael On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Rob Godfrey <[email protected]>wrote: > On 25 March 2013 20:11, Gordon Sim <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03/12/2013 07:37 PM, Rafael Schloming wrote: > >> > >> On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 2:02 PM, Rob Godfrey > >> <[email protected]>wrote: > >>> > >>> Frankly I think the retrospective re-naming causes as many issues as > >>> it solves. I actually think the key for us is just to document what > >>> we have and where we are going and to make sure we publicise the > >>> latter. > > > > [...] > >> > >> I think "documenting what we have and where we are going" is too > large, > >> amorphous, and difficult as a task to "just do." There have been several > >> attempts at this already and they don't seem to result in strong > >> consensus. > > > > > > I think the web site reworking that Justin started some time back was a > good > > start at the first part of that: > > http://people.apache.org/~jross/transom/2013-02-11/ > > > > I think it needs some more work and a lot more feedback, but I certainly > > felt it was promising as a way of clarifying what Qpid is and what the > > current components are, particularly > > http://people.apache.org/~jross/transom/2013-02-11/components/index.html > > > > I'd suggest we try to collectively help Justin drive that forward a bit > more > > by taking some time to provide feedback. > > +1 I think aiming to rework the website for the 0.22 release would > make a lot of sense. > > I'll take a proper look at this in the morning and provide any > detailed feedback after that > > -- Rob > > > > > Here's some more from me: > > > > I feel that APIs are not quite the same thing as components, though I > think > > it is very important to list the different APIs and explain them. A > > component may implement one or more API. (And an API will be implemented > by > > one or more components). > > > > I do like the 'Messaging built on AMQP' phrase. That seems quite a > succinct > > way of communicating the fundamental focus of the project. > > > > I feel there is a neater way of saying 'Qpid makes messaging tools that > > speak AMQP' however. Perhaps I would move the paragraph on AMQP up before > > the one on Qpid and then say e.g. Qpid provides AMQP enabled components > for > > that ecosystem. Or something... I'm not completely happy with that > either. > > > > I'll try and provide some more feedback on other aspects and encourage > > others to do likewise. > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > >
