Re: Deliberate web site reorganization
On Fri, Dec 14, 2001 at 05:41:31PM -0500, Jeff Albro wrote:
> If you take a look at the server logs, you can see where people went from
> the main page. (grep for home page as referring link) You can tell how
> people are using it now. I suspect you won't find people clicking on the
> "Debian International" link because it is not clear what it means. Maybe
> you'll find that 90% go straight to the installation. Do more people read
> the DWN than the event centered news releases? Are more than 5% of people
> going to the mirrors? Are they worth having? Let's find out!
What the logs don't tell you is the feedback the webmasters have
received. They also don't tell you intention. It is very easy to have
a frequently requested page that is only requested because users are
misled. If you find any specific pages that are not convenient but
frequently requested, please let us know.
It is always dangerous to design by a single criteria. There are always
competing criteria you are trying to optimize. Frequently the goals are
at odds with each other. Trying to optimize common paths is competing with
the goals of keeping pages a reasonable length (not to short or long) and
keeping related material together.
> A basic guideline: Make links based on action. "Install Debian"
> "Support Debian" Use verbs. Let people take direct action. Instead of a
> link to the security mailing list, let people input their e-mail address.
Name links using verbs. Not a bad idea. It's not clear what you mean by
the e-mail address for security mailing list though.
> Can we agree that the MAIN purpose of a homepage is to jump off to further
> information? I think the news and secruity updates belong on the page,
> but need to remain secondary priorities.
This is what is being advocated in the RFC.
[stuff about design snipped]
I'm a firm believer that form should follow function. Thus, we should
figure out what we want where and then discuss what the pages shold look
like. At least make it a different thread. If you feel otherwise, I'd
like to hear your thoughts on the matter.
> I guess what I am asking for is DELIBERATE redesign. To me, this means:
It seems to me that is what the RFC is for. I deliberately kept the RFC
on the short side (left out a lot of reasoning) so people would actually
read it. :)
James (Jay) Treacy