Re: Website improvements, part 1

[Graham Percival]

On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:21:28PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote:
>    - I changed "Easier editing" to "Editing".

ok.  I also like the "applicances" tab, although I agree with you
that the name might be ideal (but I also can't think of a better
name right now).

>    - I organized the entry scenario (= introduction.html) according to three
>    questions
>      - Why should I consider LilyPond?

IMO "examples" should remain part of that.

>      - Does it really work/what's the real-world use?

I'd be fine with calling that box "LilyPond in the real world",
although I'm not certain if the applicances should be in this
category.  I mean, some of them make sense (like wikipedia), but
others seem like "toy" examples.

If anything, I think that the "web frontends" should get their own
tab.

>      This is reflected in the layout of the boxes on introduction.html
>      while it's irrelevant in which direction the user proceeds from the
>    "Why" box

At the moment, the order seems to go top-left, bottom-left,
top-right, bottom-right.  The general design of the website is to
go top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right.  I'm not
certain this is an important distinction, but it's worth
considering.  However, I still think that text input and editing
should be the final part of the introduction.

>    - I think it would be good to add something about version control on the
>      "Text input" page, but that's something I wouldn't want to do without
>      prior discussion.

I disagree.  The purpose of "text input" is to make potential
users realize that yes, we use text, but no, it's not too
complicated.  "Version control" is a complicated concept for
non-programmers which would dilute the previous message.  You
already mentioned version control on the Features page, which
should be sufficient.

>    - I think the @contactUsAbout macro should be reconsidered.

I agree, you made good points here.

Please note that *this* is the kind of change that can be done
immediately, submitted for review, etc.  It doesn't need to wait
for James to finish his changes or 2.18 to be released.  I would
*heavily* encourage you to submit small improvements like this
soon, instead of combining them in a large reorganization that
creates havoc for translators.

Apart from the technical impact on the doc system, making small
changes like this reassure developers that you're serious and that
you know how the system works.

>    - The structure of the "Community" section is, ehm, wild.
>      I think it would be good to have an additional navigational layer.
>      But before thinking about a structure I'd like to know if this would be
>    accepted.

Probably not.  There's @chapters and @sections; having a bunch of
@subsections for one chapter is a bit weird.

I agree that Community is a bit wild; can you think of a division
that would split it into two chapters?

>    - I have one question about the structure of "Manuals":
>      What the hell is this "Web" menu item for?

The website.  It's created as a pdf and info.  One of the very
early goals of the doc system is that all the information should
be present via only info or pdfs (i.e. without an internet
connection).

- Graham