Details
-
Task
-
Status: Done (View Workflow)
-
Major
-
Resolution: Fixed
Description
gusreiber walked me through how one approaches a website project, and he told me that the important bit to get right is to think of information schema — the data model in which we organize our contents, which covers all the things we want to have on our websites. This problem really belongs to us.
Then we'd go think about how to show which of them in what pages, a process that deeply involves the mythical designer (INFRA-372).
swashbuck1r is going to check whether this is something that the designer should be also involved in (or povide us some guidance on), but in the mean time I think we should start thinking about what information we have that we want to carry over, and what information we want to add.
So I think it'd be good to start creating a preliminary catalog of those in a Wiki page, a text file, or something like that.
Attachments
Activity
lavaliere It's not clear whether "keep" means "move to site", as we're currently moving towards putting more content into the site. Could you explain what exactly you're showing?
https://wiki.jenkins-ci.org/display/JENKINS/Jenkins+2.0+Website+vision+from+Daniel+Beck contains my proposal what content should be moved from the wiki to the site (summary near the bottom, the rest of the page describes content areas).
Regarding information schema, gusreiber is that the metadata we talked about/I showed you in the Jekyll demo?
danielbeck Okay, I have cleared up the terminology I used on the doc itself. This doc is meant to outline what content is in today’s jenkins-ci.org website per KK's ask and so that we can better refine website refresh proposals to address specific content/types. This doc is based on the current jenkins-ci.org sitemap.
I cataloged sitemap content as the following:
- *Articles which should be kept on the site/as they are = yellow. * These comprise mostly the "essential" articles for introducing Jenkins CI to users and contributors, as well as all best practices which have been categorized correctly and kept up to date (last update <3 years ago). Based on the sitemap, I was under the impression that all plugins are already on the site and if so, they should stay put. Based on your proposal, it sounds as if they aren't or that only a subset are in the site today. If that's the case, then these articles should be migrated to the plugin wiki.
- Updated and kept on the site = red. These articles are mostly best practices articles that have not been updated in over 3-4 years, but are still useful articles and should be updated/preserved in the new site.
- Miscategorized/orphaned articles = blue. These articles are usually best practice articles that have been created in the wrong sections, so when we re-do the site, these articles will need some attention but should be kept on the site.
All other articles that I did not highlight are extremely out of date/not particularly useful anymore imo, and should either be archived for historical reasons or removed from the site.
I am not clear on how the Wiki and current site relate today, so perhaps I should talk to you sometime about this. Judging from the sitemap, I was under the impression that most plugins are hosted on the site today.
I think the document is reasonable, I don't disagree with any of lavaliere's assertions. I think we're going to have to have a second initiative past the website rework which is to encourage "Plugin home pages" on the site instead of pushing them through the wiki.
Cataloging done: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1t00YmKfXrePehXhaUGfYmexgy7aq711m8hJuvk-6L3A/edit