RE: [Axiom-developer] Front page esthetic

[Page, Bill]

On Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:39 PM Antoine Hersen wrote:

> Summer cleaning !!!

When it's this hot I'd rather be in an air conditioned office
in front of my computer... just call me Canadian. :-)

> I also think the web page is too cluttered.

> There is three category of people new comers, user and
> contributors.

Do you think this means we should really have three different
web sites?

> About the new comers : we are competing to get their attention
> and time. 
>
> We need to be very good at it because Axiom is complex so it
> is not going to be an easy sell.
>
> For them it should be the principle of minimum surprise and
> maximum simplicity.

Hmmm... exactly what is it that we are trying to sell? :)

Do you not feel that this might be quite misleading to such
new comers? After all, I do not think either of these
principles apply to Axiom - and some of the reason for this
depends on design choices that are specific to Axiom. I mean
specifically Axiom's type system.

I think this means that right up front we have to admit to
ourselves that Axiom may not have much appeal to most new
comers. But perhaps there is a class of "new comers" consisting
of experianced computer algebra users who have not had previous
exposure to Axiom. I think it is these people who might be most
receptive to the reasons why things are done "differently" in
Axiom.

> ( Next is a description of me looking at a project I might
> use, therefore interpret the "I want" has I really expect to
> see) 
>
> If their is two column I will only read the left one.
> (When we discuss the web page with Ralf today I even had
> forgotten about the right one I remember only the logo and
> was surprise to see link.)

Wow! That seems like a big admission to me. Is that also how
you read the newpaper and computer magazines? ;) I admit that
I also am very selective about what I read on a web page, but
not that selective...

> Also I expect the "This site" to be on the top right corner. 
> Our current top of the page do not make any sense, it is pure
> confusion to me.

Do you mean the line:

home contents changes issues preferences help  +/-
  full/simple/minimal navigator  subscribe backlinks diff edit
    (external edit icon) 

It is obvious, isn't it? that this is the top menu bar similar
to what you see on almost all window applications?

Surely some of these menu items must also be obvious to you?
E.g. 'home', 'help', 'edit' etc.

Could you say exactly what you find confusing? Keeping in
mind that this is a wiki web site, could you suggest how we
can make it less confusing?

One way, maybe, would be to completely hide that fact that this
is a wiki page by removing the top menu bar on the FrontPage.

> Also the left menu is too long, and redundant :
> Audio/visual <http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/AxiomScreenCast>
> audio ??? not common confusing.

Really? Many web sites use audio, especially ScreenCasts.

> Press releases <http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/PressReleases>
> I have doubt the general press is going to be interested by us
> really soon.

I have in mind more specific "press" such as computer magazines
and online "news" sources such as SlashDot etc. Maybe the name
"press releases" is a bit misleading?

> Gold Silver , the Olympics maybe ?

> What I like is a News section where I can see that a project is
> alive.

Right now the best place for this is "changes" on the main menu
bar that you said was confusing to you but it is also in the
right sidebar as Whats New under This Site.

It would be nice to have a nicely formatted wiki page specifically
for this purpose but then we would need someone willing to keep it
up to date.

> (Also I like a related project link where I can see other CAS,
> I love it, I think it is fair play)

Do you mean expand the Related Sites box on the right sidebar?
        
> I want a "Description" two page long maximum with what is Axiom
> what is special and great about it.

Do you mean something like

http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/AboutAxiom

which is already accessible from several links on the current
FrontPage?

> I want a screen shoot , yes sorry I always want a screen shoot
> even for a cmd line programs.

I wonder why it did not seem obvious to you to click "Audio/visual"?
Could you suggest a change of wording that would have made this
more obvious? I am trying hard here not to appear defensive or
critical. I am serious that we badly need suggestions on how
to word things so that the purpose is obvious on first reading.
I know that this might be difficult to achieve for all people
reading this web site from around the world, but we should at
least try.

Right now the only static screen shots that we have are for
Axiom with TeXmacs.

http://wiki.axiom-developer.org/Screenshots

It would be great if someone could take the time to contribute
a few more.

> And then I want a Download with maybe some binary but for sure
> a tgz of the source. I will grab it, type ./configure, make,
> make install and try.

The 'Download' link on the FrontPage does lead quite quickly
to binary and source code tgz. How can we improve that?

> Then I am going to look for a good introduction. And I hate
> it when people give me choice I want the one and definitive
> introduction. I will read between 5 and 20 pages max. Any
> document that go over 100 pages will scare me to death.

I have to agree that we lack a good introduction. But "the one
and definitive introduction" is rather hard to write for Axiom
I think. Perhaps you would be willing to create a draft? Maybe
we can try to write such an introduction in a collaborative
way?

> A good indicator for me is if I feel ok to print it. 
> And if I survive I will look for more advanced material.
        
> For the axiom user. We should not expect him to subscribe to
> the mailing list.

I find that a rather surprising statement. As a user of new
open source software that is one of the first things that I
expect to have to do. One of the things that people repeatedly
claim for open source software is that the email lists of most
open source projects is a much better source of help and
information that any traditional help resource for commercial
software.

> He will go to the web page to solve his problems and get new
> version. Here it is good FAQ, oriented tutorial, documentation
> and search able mail list. Subscribing to a mailing list is a
> big step, we should not expect people to do it.

I agree that the current Axiom tutorial information could be
much better organized. Do you have any suggestions about how
to do this?

On the Axiom Wiki it is also possible for users to "subscribe"
to specific web pages. Did you notice the word 'subscribe' in
the top menu line? This allows people to automatically receive
notices of new or changed web pages without having to subscribe
to the email list. Do you think this is a useful feature?
        
> For active user/ contributors/ developer what is needed is a
> collaboration tool, I have no answer for that.

Axiom Wiki? Or do you mean that what we have now does work as
a collaboration tool?
        
> Personally I find the wiki difficult to use, it seem a big mess
> to me and I spend a lot of time looking for documents I saw
> before and know should be somewhere.

I am surprised that you say "what is needed is a collaboration
tool" and then you say immediately after that you find the wiki
difficult to use. I wonder what you have in mind when you say
"collaboration"?

> It lack structure and search will not replace that, in general
> giving a name to your problem is the difficult part. 

Of course there are alternatives to search such as the Site Map
and Site Index links on the right sidebar. But I agree in general
that the structure of the web pages on the Axiom Wiki web site
could be improved.

I did try to make some progress toward improving this structure
by introducing the new Up/Down navigation links on the left side
of each page (except FrontPage). My intention is to make the
structure of the pages more obvious and more useful for "navigating"
(i.e. manually searching) through the web site. Do you think that
is useful?

Note: What is Up and what is down can be changed by clicking
on 'backlinks' from the top menu bar. Maybe that is not obvious.
Can you suggest another way to introduce the concept of the
page structure?

> When you look at the tree structure you see a big mess and all
> the bugs !

Well, it is not really a tree structure. Each page can be linked
to several pages both "up" and "down". So it is really a lattice
(to a mathematician) or an ontology (to at least one branch of
computer science).

When you say "all the bugs" do you mean the issue tracker pages?
These to not appear in most of the links on the left sidebar.
Or do you mean when you look it the overall structure under
'contents'? Because we have over 300 such issue reports (about
the same number as all other contents of the web site), these
do tend to dominate any listing of contents. Perhaps we need a
way to suppress these from the main contents list and only
show them on a more detailed contents list?
        
> About people contribution :
>  I almost never find wiki useful.

Can you say why you do not find it useful?

>  Wiki as documentation is always an unpleasant mess.

Do you not think the word "always" is too strong? I can give
some examples where it is very good (e.g. Wikipedia) and others
where it is not so good. Of course the quality of the contents
of a wiki depend directly on the contributions of users. Perhaps
what you are saying is equivalent to saying that the users of
software like Axiom are not qualified (or not willing?) to
contribute to it's documentation? Or are your comments really
specific to documentation done via a wiki?

> I found comments useful( I think it is the MySQL documentation,
> it has user comments at the end of each section, you always
> find clarification and corner case described). 

Is this not like what you see on the current Axiom Wiki?

> And modifying a page is not has easy at it sound. Writing
> correctly is time consuming and difficult. I never feel like
> touching other people stuff. You can often see it in a wiki
> where old information is rarely deleted. 

This is just an attitude that can be changed by experience
isn't it?

> So in the end it is a question of balance between people
> contribution and time saved not doing it against mess and
> quality.

I agree. My conclusion is that we do not have nearly enough
people willing to contribute. For me, time saved is time not
"stolen" from other projects (and paying work) that also
deserve my attention. I am sure that this is similar to many
other people who currently contribute to Axiom.

> I think a fix web page with a few editors and keeping the wiki
> as a play ground is the best solution. But easy to say because
> I am not volunteering to be an editor.

How can we solve this problem if no one volunteers to be editor -
not even editor of their own wiki pages?

> Also just doing a good cleaning of the wiki might be what we
> need.

Please give even a few simple suggestions about what needs to
be cleaned? What can we delete? What things already exist on
the web site that can be linked into a more useful structure?

Thanks again for all you comments.

Regards,
Bill Page.