[Web Comm] Meeting follow up scope of webcomm
jgarnett at refractions.net
Thu Oct 12 11:14:27 EDT 2006
Jason Birch wrote:
> We're responsible for Web graphic design. VisCom is responsible for print.
I am right now concerned with web design (ie the website) rather then
graphic design (the appearance) - and it looks like we are responsible
for web design.
> Not sure how I feel about writing guidelines. What did you have in mind?
Well when we do get around to having a web design we need specific
content created to capture specific users (look at the user stories for
an example), we
need to define some writing guidelines for that (and example would do
fine). We probably also want to provide writing guidelines for the
website, in terms of
tone of voice (passive tense will not be good when we need to appear
authoritative on our subject matter etc...). Once again a couple
examples should set this
> As far as translations go, we will be putting in the framework for the main OSGeo site, which may or may not be shared by projects at their choice. Those projects that choose to share the framework will be able to give their volunteers access to translate project pages. Those projects that don't need/want the OSGeo framework will be on their own to enable translation mechanism and access for their volunteers.
But here is the question, do we expect those projects to provide a
translation process (ie. is internationalization a requirement we need
to let the incubation process know of right away?)
> Beyond providing the framework, I believe that we will not be taking an active role in maintaining project-specific pages. Our role is more of an umbrella, providing marketing materials that link the various projects together and make the OSGeo-soup clearer for all. We will have to round up our own volunteers for umbrella page translation.
Understood, we need to design the site in order to collect piles of
information, clearly define those piles to be useful for the message the
foundation puts out as a whole, and facilitate the individual projects
in creation of these artifacts. We probably will also be stuck with the
big picture documents that tie everything together - indeed these are
the first documents identified as needed by most of the user stories.
What I am describing is a website, I am afraid we are building a portal.
Take a look at the difference between the OGC website (laid out for
visitors so they can find information), and their portal (a brutal thing
divided up by projects and committees focused on artifacts like files
and collaboration wikis).
The OGC of course has security on their portal preventing public
visibility, we have the pleasure of being an open organization so we can
make our portal visible.
But we still need the website.
More information about the Webcom