[Grok-dev] Re: Do these pictograms make sense?

Sebastian Ware sebastian at urbantalk.se
Thu May 17 15:35:29 EDT 2007

I am now convinced this is a good idea. :)


17 maj 2007 kl. 21.11 skrev Martijn Faassen:

> Sebastian Ware wrote:
>> The copywriter within me would cry, but I can consider being  
>> pragmatic. :)
> Sure, I have an internal copywriter as well, which is why I noticed  
> they were all verbs. :)
>> The problem with the word "Community" is that it is used in very  
>> different ways. Mysql uses it in the sense commercial/community  
>> version. Social networking sites use it in the sense of user  
>> profiles + interaction -- the people and what they do.
> Checking out the websites of some of our nearest competitors:
> Django uses 'community'. TurboGears has 'get involved' in the  
> sidebar, but not really its own section.
> Ruby on Rails has "get involved" (they got 'get *' for everything).  
> They also have another more traditional thing with 'community' on top.
> Pylons also has 'community'.
> Community seems to be pretty commonly used. Since it's clear we're  
> about a framework I'm not too worried about comparisons with social  
> networking sites. The MySQL 'community version' is a bit more  
> common, but still rare enough we don't need to worry about it.
>> I still think we should retain a structure that corresponds to the  
>> phases the developer goes through. Think of it as developer life  
>> cycle. You first evaluate, then learn enough to get started, then  
>> you develop applications and at some point he feels the need to  
>> share/contribute back to the project.
>> In that sense I think community means something else. We are all  
>> part of the community so then it would make more sense to organise  
>> the site in content type sections:
>> Now: Evaluate, Learn, Develop, Share | Download
>> Community: Evaluation, Learning, Developer, Community | Download
>> Content type: Introduction, Tutorial, Documentation, Resources,  
>> Community | Download
>> And I am convinced that the benefits of a life cycle approach has  
>> many benefits, including indicating to the author what tone the  
>> content should have.
> What about 'Contribute' instead of 'Share'?
> Evaluate, Learn, Develop, Contribute
> I'm fine with those entry points but we should also keep obvious  
> "content type" style entry points:
> About, Tutorial, Documentation, Community, Source
> To evaluate someone might check out all 5 of these.
> To learn, someone will typically focus on tutorial and  
> documentation, but may also consult the source and community.
> To develop, you will focus on the documentation (referencing back  
> to the tutorial), and sometimes look at the source and the ask the  
> community.
> To contribute, you'd need to be heavily engaged with the community  
> and know the areas of documentation and source where you want to  
> contribute.
> Since 'download' is so important always keep a download link next  
> to the entry points.
>> Anyway. In the next suggestion you will understand what I am  
>> talking about, and we can see if it all makes sense. (sometimes  
>> the code has to do the talking... :) )
> :)
> Regards,
> Martijn
> _______________________________________________
> Grok-dev mailing list
> Grok-dev at zope.org
> http://mail.zope.org/mailman/listinfo/grok-dev

More information about the Grok-dev mailing list