Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
110 lines (85 loc) · 6.1 KB

2018-02-01.md

File metadata and controls

110 lines (85 loc) · 6.1 KB
Raw

Node.js Foundation Website Redesign Initiative Meeting 2018-02-01

Present

  • @oe
  • @bnb
  • @chowdhurian
  • @fhemberger
  • @amiller-gh
  • @maddhruv
  • @timothyis
  • @franciscop
  • @mrhinkle

Notes

  • Prioritizing agenda

General objectives, strategy going forward

  • Olivia, Tierney: We should ensure that goals are long-term

  • Adam: Rediscussing the points listed in nodejs/nodejs.org#1534

  • Adam: Site Structure, Design, Implementation

  • Adam: In that order

  • Olivia: Previous discussions have been too implementation-focused

  • Olivia: before we get down the agenda, what cadence do we want the meetings to be on

  • General agreement: every 2 weeks

Overall site structure

  • See also nodejs/nodejs.org#1534 (Assess current site structure, see what's needed and what's not).

  • Frederic: History of website. There never was a well defined content structure, it was made as needed.

  • Jeremiah: brief notes on iojs.org’s design

  • Adam: sounds like now’s a good time to do something more design focused

  • Tierney: an overview of some obstacles on the current website

  • Olivia: Make it easier to add information in a more structured manner.

  • Adam: Also a good opportunity to have a design-focused process for contribution review

  • Adam: Process for PR to add content to site, would help the different stakeholders who add content to site.

  • Olivia: Suggestion to start. What do we have now, a sort of site map. Then go from there.

  • Frederic: volunteers to write up a site map of the existing site (link)

  • Tierney, Jeremiah: discussion of how the node api docs are maintained somewhat separate.

  • Adam: Overview of his blog post write up which compares to other “competeting” websites in some detail: https://medium.com/the-node-js-collection/redesigning-nodejs-part-1-fac08a0e015a

  • Fransisco: what are the main goals of the current website?

  • Tierney: Primary uses of site to date: Downloads, information, Documentation, Getting involved.

Addressing content held in separate repositories

  • Olivia: How should we address documents in separate repositories?
  • Frederic: I want to see the Code of Conduct, governance docs, etc, directly. Should be part of the website.
  • Adam: I’d love to see some “Learn” page, a normal-language guided tour. Something more comprehensive and ergonomic.
  • Adam: We may not need to write this content as it may already exist and we may be able to get it contributed back.
  • Frederic: The getting started guides are currently at https://nodejs.org/en/docs/guides/getting-started-guide/, needs to be surfaced better. As does the introduction https://nodejs.org/en/about/.
  • Adam: The site should feel more cohesive.
  • Timothy: I don’t really agree - have seen other examples where the docs and main site work for different purposes.
  • Adam: Some things should probably look the same as the home page, e.g. the ‘getting started’.
  • Adam: So long as implementation doesn’t impact design

Syncing with the Node.js Foundation website

  • Frederic: Let’s also think about the foundation website: They have a wordpress setup right now, but at the moment the foundation website looks totally different. (There could be a technical solution to keep the WP theme with the website layout in sync.)
  • Olivia: We might need to figure that out as we go, we’ll need to stay in contact with the people who manage the foundation website.
  • Tierney: We should avoid duplicating too much content between Foundation and Node.js website.
  • Adam: Let’s invite the foundation site maintainers to these meetings.
  • Adam: As for unifying theming and branding - I don’t think it is unreasonable to come from the design with a full process for theming Node.js branded websites.

Decision structure (consensus, etc.)

  • There is a Foundation marketing committee. Check with Greg (gwallace@linuxfoundation.org)

  • Tierney: I sit on that committee as part of my job, and it is a pretty open group.

  • Discussion of existing consensus-seeking model, seems acceptable (lazy consensus).

Missing requirements

  • Adam: documentation versions switcher (external)

  • Adam: Better release structure overview (LTS schedule, etc)

  • Adam: Robust community page

  • Adam: Present the blog better

  • Olivia: Is there a way we can consolidate the medium blog into the website when the time comes?

  • Adam: I think there needs to be a strong distinction between community content and official (changelog, etc) content. I think these should stay separate.

  • Split news into blog and release notes (and remove them from the regular blog)?

  • Some other related discussion

  • Francisco: Hard to search the docs.

  • Tierney: We should probably try to get a little higher level than the content in this planning.

  • Timothy: We probably need a collection of higher-level content needs, what general site functionality is required.

Previous attempts at redesigning the website

  • Frederic: Two previous attempts

  • Frederic: One was from Leo, but had no content/structure discussion, just design/mockups.

  • Frederic: The other time was something from the foundation, but never came to anything.

  • Frederic: Was poor communication with the foundation there.

  • Olivia: Neither really came from the community itself…

  • Tierney: Both were a single point of failure, didn’t have enough time and ultimately dropped it.

  • Timothy: It is clear we need to remember this is a really big challenge, we need to break it down into manageable chunks.

  • Olivia: We could actually hire a designer with foundation funds if necessary...

  • Mark: (Some discussion on how hiring someone would work between the foundation.)

  • Some discussion of previous design competitions e.g. the logo (mixed results regarding brand experience, overall design, etc.)

  • Olivia: Any other questions before we end?

  • Adam: If we have the ability to hire, are we able to do lower-level brand design e.g. the logo if necessary/desired?

  • Francisco: Should we estimate a timeline? Is getting a designer even possible this year?

  • Mark: (Some clarification of funds allocation.)

  • Olivia: As to general timeline… good question. Hard to pinpoint down at this point.

  • Jeremiah: No less than 6 months.