|
From: | John Roper |
Subject: | Re: Blended, static site generator [WAS: Re: New LilyPond website] |
Date: | Sat, 4 Feb 2017 19:07:13 -0500 |
John Roper <address@hidden> writes:
>> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:46 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> John Roper <address@hidden> writes:
>>>
>>> >> On Sat, Feb 4, 2017 at 4:16 PM, David Kastrup <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Separating website content from general documentation should
>>> >>> > definitely be an option.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> What advantages do you expect from it?
>>> >
>>> > It is easier for users to write and it looks better.
>>>
>>> Who are "users"? What are we wanting them to write?
>>>
>>> > Blended exports human-readable files.
>>>
>>> We already export human-readable files in a host of formats including
>>> PDF, HTML, plain text.
>>>
>>> > Look at the website. http://jmroper.com/blended/
>>>
>>> My question probably was not clear enough. What tangible benefits for
>>> LilyPond's website and its ongoing maintenance do we expect to reap from
>>> a move to Blended as its content management system?
>
> Design update.
So this content management system prescribes a particular design, or
makes implementing a particular design easier?
> It looks better and attracts more users to the software.
Last time I looked, users were not selecting their software by leafing
through random web pages until they find a generally good-looking one
and then being attracted to the software it advertises.
At any rate, I wasn't really asking for advertising slogans here but
rather concrete examples of stuff that would improve under such a
change.
--
David Kastrup
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |