[Pydotorg-redesign] Simplify and prioritize (fwd)

[Aahz]

[I'm going to be repeating much of what I said to Trevor in response to
his private message, but it's faster for me to rewrite that than to get
his permission.]

On Fri, Aug 08, 2003, Steve Holden wrote:
>
> [Stephan's top-posting remedied to relieve Aahz' apoplexy ;-]

<grin>

>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2003 15:28:30 -0400
>>> From: Trevor Toenjes <zope at toenjes.com>
>>> To: marketing-python at wingide.com
>>> Subject: [marketing-python] Simplify and prioritize
>>>
>>> python.org's primary purpose is to attract others to the language.
>>> That is what everyone on this list is most concerned about.

I'm not sure I agree with this, in the sense that python.org is intended
to grab people who've never heard of Python.  I believe that python.org
is used *after* people have already heard about Python, in order to learn
more about Python and to justify using it.  That's quite a different
marketing perspective.

>>> And, darn it, let's get some color, graphics, and photos on the
>>> homepage.  If everyone wants to attract new users easier, then let's
>>> put some makeup on her and make her kissable.  It needs to be more
>>> consumer friendly.  If you want to attract business-types, then you
>>> have no choice but to do this.

"Consumer friendly" does not directly correlate with graphics and photos.
Particularly if my belief is correct, people going to python.org will
place their emphasis on finding information.  There's also the issue that
lots of web research shows that any slow-loading page drives people away.

> Stephan Deibel:
>>
>> This was posted on marketing-python.  I thought it contained some
>> valid points.  Aahz responding "Color, okay.  Graphics and photos,
>> nyet" which is for the most part valid and also matches my own
>> viewpoint for the most part, but on the other hand a site like this
>> www.blender.org seems to do a good job with relatively few graphics +
>> color.
>
> Personally I think a *minimum* amount of photographic-quality graphics
> is an absolute requirement to make the web site "stand out" from the
> crowd. Aahz might disagree, but as long as the content makes equal sense
> in lynx/links I don't see any objection to quite a lot of color and just
> a little photography.

No, a *little* color, otherwise you lose a sense of design coherence.
It's also critical that text be dark on a light background for
readability (with perhaps a few headlines of light text on dark
background for emphasis).  I'm not adamantly opposed to visual imagery,
but any page had better load in less than thirty seconds on a 33.6 modem.

> Interestingly the Blender web site looks, from the layout, like it's
> built in PHP-nuke or something very similar. Such frameworks do make it
> remarkably easy to manage content. Is creosote so heavily loaded we
> couldn't consider generating pages per-view?

That's not the issue.  The issue is creating the setup.

> Absolutely. And Trevor's main point, which is that we need to take a
> more conventional marketing approach, is well made. It's all right
> saying "if they web site has to be flashy to make them download Python
> then let them stay away", but this is cutting our noses off to spite
> our faces.

But making a flashy web site *will* drive some people away.  That's very
different from saying that we need an attractive web site.  I also don't
agree that a "conventional" marketing approach is necessarily what will
work best for us.  There are many ways of getting attention that
conventional marketing doesn't cover.  The way I see it, the purpose of
the web site is to *support* our other marketing efforts.

> We have some terrific skills at our disposal. The present site shows how
> sadly they are being underutilized. I think it's time to ask for a BDFL
> pronouncement on how the webmasters make decisions and who's in charge
> of the site!

That seems reasonable to me.  But the big question from my POV is how the
web site gets maintained, and until some people step forward to show
their commitment, the people currently doing the work to maintain the web
site should get a collective veto over any changes.  Currently, IIRC (and
with a little memory help by skimming the pydotorg archives), the people
doing most of the website work are:

* Aahz
* Skip Montanaro
* AMK
* Fred Drake
* Steve Holden
* Mats Wichmann

with

* Barry Warsaw
* Greg Ward
* Thomas Wouters

doing most of the sysadmin work.

> You might be, but it could stand to be said again. There's a LOT that
> could be done to improve the present design even in the framework of the
> existing content-generation methods.

Yup.

> I'm also hoping that we can provide the webmasters with a few simple
> scripts for tasks like "Add a job posting", "Put a news item in" and so
> on, but that's another discussion.

That would be delightful, and I certainly don't consider it another
discussion -- that's at the root of much of my opposition to some of the
ideas that have come up.  I don't have the experience or the mental
bandwidth to make such improvements, but I'm not willing to let the
currently minimal level of website maintenance get uprooted unless it's
for something demonstrably better for keeping the website updated.
-- 
Aahz (aahz at pythoncraft.com)           <*>         http://www.pythoncraft.com/

This is Python.  We don't care much about theory, except where it intersects 
with useful practice.  --Aahz