[Marketing] Thanks for your feedback on Website RFI
bbasques at sharedgeo.org
Sat Jan 7 20:34:01 PST 2017
I think it's more about describing the projects on an equal basis and
letting the users decide which will work best for their particular need
and supporting infrastructure. Maybe this is something that is created
as a step between Incubation and Graduation of projects.
Something along the lines of a set of short descriptors for each project
similar to what you might see when going out and comparing/buying any
other software and/or hardware. Topics like:
* Configuration options
o Typical configuration
o Built for what uses
o Other uses
* Project/Product overview
o Why was it created
o How is it used
o Who uses it (typically)
o Component list
o What's it run on.
o What Standards are adhered to for/during development.
o Extra Capability options
o What other Projects/Products can it be used with.
* Manuals and Support options.
o Project Community pointers
o Paid for support options.
+ Hmm, makes me think about how to badge up Companies related
to supporting particular products/projects as some sort of
Just a quick list, probably other stuff that should be here in the
list. But I think a focus on supplying this type of information on an
even basis across all projects is the key. Even going so far as setting
up online comparing options similar to buyinh a CPU where the data is
presented side by side for each product/project.
On 01/07/2017 07:10 PM, Cameron Shorter wrote:
> <bringing this conversation back on list>
> RFI here:
> I agree with the goal of making OSGeo easy to navigate by guiding
> users to the best project.
> The political challenge of this is one OSGeo project gets preferential
> access to users and sponsors. Do we recommend GeoServer or MapServer?
> QGis or gvSIG? Each is competing for the same user-base.
> As Jody has mentioned, we've pushed to get a 5 star rating in place to
> rank project maturity and help find projects. (This was shot down,
> particularly by projects with low ranking).
> We have been able to reference OpenHub metrics, which provides some
> guidance, but is still far from perfect. It should be at
> https://live.osgeo.org/en/metrics.html but when I check just now, it
> appears the factoids are not being pulled down from OpenHub.
> On 8/01/2017 9:02 AM, Jody Garnett wrote:
>> The trick is to do this feedback while not discouraging the
>> volunteers on OSGeo live. Reading the above discussion it seems to be
>> the difference between a warehouse and a store.
>> It is easier to do a warehouse as there is no value judgement on the
>> items stocked. Cameron has tried several times to guide OSGeo live
>> towards the store experience (with ratings and metrics and asking for
>> docs and guidance) - each time he moves the dial - but at some
>> political cost.
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:52 PM Jeffrey Johnson <ortelius at gmail.com
>> <mailto:ortelius at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Also, after reading your most recent comments, I want to raise one
>> overarching point. The way you describe things of just providing big
>> lists and linking people off to completely foreign sites and
>> experiences is horrible user experience and its the exact reason why
>> OSGeo is simply incomprehensible to the vast majority of our
>> users. Again, I say this after trying to explain OSGeo and its
>> initiatives to audiences all over the world. We can and should strive
>> to have a *consistent* set of content that guides users to the
>> that is appropriate for them holding their hand as much of the way
>> there as we can. Just dumping them onto some random trac or wiki page
>> may work for some, but it confuses the hell out of everyone else. See
>> qgis.og downloads page and remember how it used to be before to
>> understand what I mean.
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Jeffrey Johnson
>> <ortelius at gmail.com <mailto:ortelius at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> > On Sat, Jan 7, 2017 at 12:30 PM, Cameron Shorter
>> > <cameron.shorter at gmail.com <mailto:cameron.shorter at gmail.com>>
>> >> Hi Jeff,
>> >> No problem. I'm done reviewing.
>> > Thanks
>> >> Key message from me is:
>> >> * Keep it simple and maintainable.
>> >> * Try to avoid duplicating content. In particular, we should align
>> >> OSGeo-Live content with website content, as OSGeo-Live is
>> already achieving
>> >> some of the key goals of the website.
>> > I really strongly disagree that OSGeo-Live is achieving much of
>> > anything. I've seen group after group of people completely
>> confused as
>> > to what to do when OSGeo is booted up and have no idea which
>> > to use for what or why there are so many softwares that all
>> seem to do
>> > the same thing. Its incredibly confusing to them (as is OSGeo in
>> > general). We tend to keep thinking of things as developers when we
>> > really do need to take a much more user (and particularly users who
>> > have the authority to decide what software their organization uses)
>> > focused approach. In any case, I _do_ agree that we should align
>> > OSGeo-Live and the website to the point of including alot of the
>> > website on the ISO, but this big index page
>> > https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html
>> <https://live.osgeo.org/en/overview/overview.html> isnt really
>> doing the
>> > job at all IMO. See my comments in the doc about using somekind of
>> > structured info about the projects that can be reused in many
>> > (including the info sheets).
>> > Thanks again for providing feedback. I hope others take as much
>> > to make sure that we have a good basis for having a successful
>> > project.
>> >> Feel free to share this email.
>> >> On 8/01/2017 6:42 AM, Jeffrey Johnson wrote:
>> >>> Glad someone is really reading this besides me and Jody :)
>> >> --
>> >> Cameron Shorter
>> >> M +61 419 142 254 <tel:+61%20419%20142%20254>
> Cameron Shorter
> M +61 419 142 254
> Marketing mailing list
> Marketing at lists.osgeo.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Marketing