Hi all, I know it's rather early, but the WG decisions are going more concrete every week, so we could start to collect ideas of how to make the websites look like and what would be the best solution to keep the pages user-friendly, clear and informative at the same time. Once we have something to work on, we can open a specific trac ticket to start coding. It's also clear we depend on the marketing and design team, this means the earlier we have some ideas the better, because we can speak to them in time. The actual status, and for F21 we shouldn't have any surprises, is about 3 products: * Workstation * Server * Cloud All of them have the same Core and will be released at the same date (for F21). We need also to give all of these products the same importance.
Pages affected by this change are mainly: index, get-fedora, get-fedora-all, verify, get-prerelease. If we look at it farther, we should also change the splash pages and the using and features pages (here we need marketing).
The work for F21 Alpha (if we definitely use the new release cycle) is limited to the get-prerelease and verify page. There should be also a few adjustments on the index, IMHO. But the work on the get-prerelease page surely will give us the direction on how to present the three products, so it's rather important because it will be reflected afterwards in the get-fedora page (for final release).
Personally I'd see a three column layout for the three products, this should work as entry page and once the user select the product he is interested in, he will be redirected to the specific page where he'll find also the download button. This can be a tab within the same page or a new page, I'd prefer a tab as it's much faster. I have already some doubts we need to figure out asap: What's with spins? Will we still have separated images? It seems not, but I may be totally wrong here...for all these doubts we need to have as many informations as possible from the WG, and FESCo filed an activity report to keep track of the decisions [1].
If you have any ideas or addtions to this please add them, this topic should work as brainstorming and news-collector, in order to not forget anything important when rewriting the pages.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1221
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 10:45 AM, Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi all, I know it's rather early, but the WG decisions are going more concrete every week, so we could start to collect ideas of how to make the websites look like and what would be the best solution to keep the pages user-friendly, clear and informative at the same time. Once we have something to work on, we can open a specific trac ticket to start coding. It's also clear we depend on the marketing and design team, this means the earlier we have some ideas the better, because we can speak to them in time. The actual status, and for F21 we shouldn't have any surprises, is about 3 products:
- Workstation
- Server
- Cloud
All of them have the same Core and will be released at the same date (for F21). We need also to give all of these products the same importance.
Pages affected by this change are mainly: index, get-fedora, get-fedora-all, verify, get-prerelease. If we look at it farther, we should also change the splash pages and the using and features pages (here we need marketing).
The work for F21 Alpha (if we definitely use the new release cycle) is limited to the get-prerelease and verify page. There should be also a few adjustments on the index, IMHO. But the work on the get-prerelease page surely will give us the direction on how to present the three products, so it's rather important because it will be reflected afterwards in the get-fedora page (for final release).
Personally I'd see a three column layout for the three products, this should work as entry page and once the user select the product he is interested in, he will be redirected to the specific page where he'll find also the download button. This can be a tab within the same page or a new page, I'd prefer a tab as it's much faster. I have already some doubts we need to figure out asap: What's with spins? Will we still have separated images? It seems not, but I may be totally wrong here...for all these doubts we need to have as many informations as possible from the WG, and FESCo filed an activity report to keep track of the decisions [1].
If you have any ideas or addtions to this please add them, this topic should work as brainstorming and news-collector, in order to not forget anything important when rewriting the pages.
Thanks for the initiative Robert. Reading fast, answering faster:
- Do we know yet that the Base won't be shipped as a product? I would see dev downloading base in order to install their own Fedora very specific (is ISO is made). - In the download area, I would see 3 column or one block and 2 column bellow. With the first (block or middle column) featuring the default download (which would stay Workstation, right?). With main info (dl{,direct,torrent,live} links). The other column would just be the explanation about the product (a name, a text, a picture). One would click on the column to hide the previous shown and display specific content. Then we would just have index (get fedora default) and get-fedora. There is no need anymore about get-fedora-all.
That way, we strip out many entries to show smart and precise content.
Also, we should matter about accessibility. And Javascript should be only about improving the general shape/beauty of our design.
2014/1/23 Kévin Raymond shaiton@fedoraproject.org:
Thanks for the initiative Robert.
Thanks for the quick answer and ideas.
- Do we know yet that the Base won't be shipped as a product? I would
see dev downloading base in order to install their own Fedora very specific (is ISO is made).
The idea is nice; afaik the Base is the very base for all three products, but it is not a product by itself. In the future it could be that we will have more than three products.
- In the download area, I would see 3 column or one block and 2 column
bellow. With the first (block or middle column) featuring the default download (which would stay Workstation, right?). With main info (dl{,direct,torrent,live} links).
+1 for one block and two columns, indeed we have only 960px width ;)
We should already think about different release cycles. As said for F21 they will be simultaneous, but from that on the three products can have different release schedules. For example, I guess Server WG will try to have much longer cycles than Workstation. Also, at this point, we can throw away the secondary arches concept: We have only s390 and PPC left as secondary, s390 will probably release Server images, and that is, as explained in the Board Proposal [1], enough to be considered Primary.
The other column would just be the explanation about the product (a name, a text, a picture). One would click on the column to hide the previous shown and display specific content. Then we would just have index (get fedora default) and get-fedora. There is no need anymore about get-fedora-all.
Yes, right. We could put the informations we have in get-fedora-all, and not in get-fedora, into the new get-fedora page. I like the idea of one single download page for all products.
That way, we strip out many entries to show smart and precise content.
Also, we should matter about accessibility. And Javascript should be only about improving the general shape/beauty of our design.
Agree totally also here, but we wouldn't need JS for this. We have jquery for the tabs (just handle it with them if needed) and for other things we can use CSS.
Fortunately we have already a lot of things for Cloud, we will re-use what we have. For Server we don't have anything, that will be the funny part.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora.next/boardproposal
Fortunately we have already a lot of things for Cloud, we will re-use what we have. For Server we don't have anything, that will be the funny part.
Let's target the audience in our design... colors & co for workstation and cloud, black & white with really few doc for server :D only the dl link :p
2014/1/24 Kévin Raymond shaiton@fedoraproject.org:
Fortunately we have already a lot of things for Cloud, we will re-use what we have. For Server we don't have anything, that will be the funny part.
Let's target the audience in our design... colors & co for workstation and cloud, black & white with really few doc for server :D only the dl link :p
I like this! Perhaps not black and white, but we have 4 foundation colors, why not use the different colors to distinguish the sites/tabs/whatever of the three products?
Let's target the audience in our design... colors & co for workstation and cloud, black & white with really few doc for server :D only the dl link :p
I like this! Perhaps not black and white, but we have 4 foundation colors, why not use the different colors to distinguish the sites/tabs/whatever of the three products?
not so nice for colorblind people. Or for people having a bad screen color settings. Ok for the title, or a background somewhere, but it should stay discrete imho. Design team will choose :)
Hey,
This is great to bring his up now and as early as possible.
I'll try to be brief and concise.
I do like the 3 column layout, like piano keys. Each key would be for one product (base, workstation, server, etc) and have quick links for download and iso size. Clicking on the key would go their respective page/section with details and different supported plaforms and the like (maybe fp.o/<product>/.
I do think we should drop the /using/ section and have fedoramagazine or planet (filtered by tags) to fill that space.
The 'features and screenshot' sections should be moved into more specific product pages, as it would no longer apply to all products.
The areas community, help and contributors should be left alone but obviously cleaned up.
On the tech side, maybe we should use bootstrap? It has a similar concept an 960 and it looks like it has some nice features we can use to keep our dev quicker.
Thoughts?
Sijis
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 3:45 AM, Robert Mayr robyduck@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi all, I know it's rather early, but the WG decisions are going more concrete every week, so we could start to collect ideas of how to make the websites look like and what would be the best solution to keep the pages user-friendly, clear and informative at the same time. Once we have something to work on, we can open a specific trac ticket to start coding. It's also clear we depend on the marketing and design team, this means the earlier we have some ideas the better, because we can speak to them in time. The actual status, and for F21 we shouldn't have any surprises, is about 3 products:
- Workstation
- Server
- Cloud
All of them have the same Core and will be released at the same date (for F21). We need also to give all of these products the same importance.
Pages affected by this change are mainly: index, get-fedora, get-fedora-all, verify, get-prerelease. If we look at it farther, we should also change the splash pages and the using and features pages (here we need marketing).
The work for F21 Alpha (if we definitely use the new release cycle) is limited to the get-prerelease and verify page. There should be also a few adjustments on the index, IMHO. But the work on the get-prerelease page surely will give us the direction on how to present the three products, so it's rather important because it will be reflected afterwards in the get-fedora page (for final release).
Personally I'd see a three column layout for the three products, this should work as entry page and once the user select the product he is interested in, he will be redirected to the specific page where he'll find also the download button. This can be a tab within the same page or a new page, I'd prefer a tab as it's much faster. I have already some doubts we need to figure out asap: What's with spins? Will we still have separated images? It seems not, but I may be totally wrong here...for all these doubts we need to have as many informations as possible from the WG, and FESCo filed an activity report to keep track of the decisions [1].
If you have any ideas or addtions to this please add them, this topic should work as brainstorming and news-collector, in order to not forget anything important when rewriting the pages.
[1] https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/1221
-- Robert Mayr (robyduck) -- websites mailing list websites@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/websites
2014-01-25 Sijis Aviles sijis@fedoraproject.org:
Hey,
This is great to bring his up now and as early as possible.
I'll try to be brief and concise.
I do like the 3 column layout, like piano keys. Each key would be for one product (base, workstation, server, etc) and have quick links for download and iso size. Clicking on the key would go their respective page/section with details and different supported plaforms and the like (maybe fp.o/<product>/.
Yes that was also my thought, just remember we have 960px, so about 300px per column, not so much. I like the idea, and also the fp.o/product (we can use different colors per site then, at least on the header).
I do think we should drop the /using/ section and have fedoramagazine or planet (filtered by tags) to fill that space.
I want to be provocative here: is fedmag ready to handle this? I'm not positive about planet feeds, the content would not be controllable.
The 'features and screenshot' sections should be moved into more specific product pages, as it would no longer apply to all products.
Yeah, that would be nice, we could elaborat an idea and pass this to marketing for the content.
The areas community, help and contributors should be left alone but obviously cleaned up.
They should remain as they are now.
On the tech side, maybe we should use bootstrap? It has a similar concept an 960 and it looks like it has some nice features we can use to keep our dev quicker.
Hah, that would be a huge task, rewriting it all. Do we have manpower to do so? I never used bootstrap but it looks nice. On the other hand, if we can improve fp.o pages we should work on them now, unless we want to work on them twice (now and when merging in the future to something else like bootstrap). I think we can do this if we work only on fp.o. I still don't get if we will ship spins as separate images, in that case we could concentrate the work on fp.o and shut down definitely spins.fp.o. If we are going to ship some of them as before, we should integrate them in fp.o and abandone spins.fp.o in any case.
Thoughts?
Yes, thank you for your ideas ;) As I said, it's the best to get all the ideas we have, and slowly move forward while we are getting updates from the WG groups.
Sijis
On 2014-01-25 21:12 (GMT+0100) Robert Mayr composed:
we have 960px
Why?
2014-01-25 Felix Miata mrmazda@earthlink.net:
On 2014-01-25 21:12 (GMT+0100) Robert Mayr composed:
we have 960px
Why?
Because that's the actual situation and it's still a very used width, as most resolutions are 1280 or 1366. We shouldn't discuss here why we have things, we want to discuss how we can make the pages better and ready for f.next. I will not change the width on the actual pages. This means rewriting all the grids css of the 960 blocks and adapt their content. It's the same work as switching to bootstrap, IMHO.
On 2014-01-25 21:47 (GMT+0100) Robert Mayr composed:
Felix Miata composed:
On 2014-01-25 21:12 (GMT+0100) Robert Mayr composed:
we have 960px
Why?
Because that's the actual situation and it's still a very used width, as most resolutions are 1280 or 1366.
Of the dozen displays in this building, not one is 1366 native, and I doubt I have one that even supports that cheap lowfi mode. What I do have natively supported includes 1024, 1280, 1400, 1600, 1680, 1920 & 2048.
We shouldn't discuss here why we have things, we want to discuss how we can make the pages better...
If you want better, work on eradicating archaic old-school assumptions. Resolution without size has no meaning WRT size. Resolutions come in many sizes, besides there being many more than your two (lowfi) resolutions, e.g. 1920 (HDTV), 2048, 2560, 2880, 1152, 1024, 480, 320, etc. http://fm.no-ip.com/PC/displays.html
What matters is pixel density, and because pixel density varies rather widely, px shouldn't factor in at all. If you think you want 960px, then what you should want is 60rem; instead of 300px, 18.75rem; instead of 12px, .75rem, etc. That way you avoid tiny type and narrow content on high density screens, and big type and horizontal scroll on low density screens. Pixels are a scourge on u9y & a11y.
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org