-
Hi, I try to work almost everyday on the new site. I'm currently filling the Project pages. I would like to have some feedback to be sure I'm not having bad ideas. - I have moved the previous Projects page to an History page. It will have to be reviewed to be a real history page. - I have written a new Project page with a short text for each important part in the Zope project: http://new.zope.org/projects - I have reorganized the Project subpages : - moved zope2 and CMF to a "Legacy Product" folder (yes I dare!) - added a page for Grok. - added a folder for the Zope Libraries (sphinx docs from pcarduner should go here) - I have begun writing a short story for the Component Architecture. Please tell if the 3d illustrations are useful and understandable, or not. http://new.zope.org/projects/zope-libraries/component-architecture - I have retracted the previous Zope 3 page, and I'm trying to write a new one by introducing the major good points about Zope3. http://new.zope.org/projects/zope3 Christophe- Thread Outline:
-
Hi! You're my favourite person of the week. Thank you for putting time into this! On 8 Jun 2008, at 12:39, Christophe Combelles <ccomb@...> wrote: > Hi, > > I try to work almost everyday on the new site. I'm currently filling > the Project > pages. I would like to have some feedback to be sure I'm not having > bad ideas. > > - I have moved the previous Projects page to an History page. It > will have to be > reviewed to be a real history page. Good. > > - I have written a new Project page with a short text for each > important part in the Zope project: > http://new.zope.org/projects Love this. It tells a good story. > > - I have reorganized the Project subpages : > - moved zope2 and CMF to a "Legacy Product" folder (yes I dare!) This is ok I think, but we need to keep the message that these are viable, proven platforms. Maybe another word than legacy? > > - added a page for Grok. > - added a folder for the Zope Libraries (sphinx docs from > pcarduner should go here) Cool. We can do this with some Apache magic and serve static files. > > - I have begun writing a short story for the Component Architecture. > Please tell > if the 3d illustrations are useful and understandable, or not. > http://new.zope.org/projects/zope-libraries/component-architecture Like this. May need some minor language review. > > - I have retracted the previous Zope 3 page, and I'm trying to write > a new one by introducing the major good points about Zope3. > http://new.zope.org/projects/zope3 Excellent. I think we're definitely on the right track here. Martin
-
Martin Aspeli a écrit : >> - I have reorganized the Project subpages : >> - moved zope2 and CMF to a "Legacy Product" folder (yes I dare!) > > This is ok I think, but we need to keep the message that these are > viable, proven platforms. Maybe another word than legacy? What about "Previous Platform"?
-
Am 08.06.2008 um 14:15 schrieb Christophe Combelles: > Martin Aspeli a écrit : >>> - I have reorganized the Project subpages : >>> - moved zope2 and CMF to a "Legacy Product" folder (yes I dare!) >> This is ok I think, but we need to keep the message that these are >> viable, proven platforms. Maybe another word than legacy? > > What about "Previous Platform"? > Zope 2.X and CMF are actively used. They are not previous platforms. Generally I try to avoid ever talk about Zope 2 and Zope 3. We mostly talk about Zope period. And then explain that Zope is based on a component architecture and that there is an application server in the downloadable Zope 2.10 for products like Plone. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jan Ulrich Hasecke -- hasecke.com Jan Ulrich Hasecke Schubertstr. 4 42719 Solingen
-
Jan Ulrich Hasecke a écrit : > > Am 08.06.2008 um 14:15 schrieb Christophe Combelles: > >> Martin Aspeli a écrit : >>>> - I have reorganized the Project subpages : >>>> - moved zope2 and CMF to a "Legacy Product" folder (yes I dare!) >>> This is ok I think, but we need to keep the message that these are >>> viable, proven platforms. Maybe another word than legacy? >> >> What about "Previous Platform"? >> > > Zope 2.X and CMF are actively used. They are not previous platforms. > > Generally I try to avoid ever talk about Zope 2 and Zope 3. We mostly > talk about Zope period. And then explain that Zope is based on a > component architecture and that there is an application server in the > downloadable Zope 2.10 for products like Plone. Zope 2 is actively used indeed, but do we really need to advertise about it? I believe the new zope.org site musts attract really new users and new developers, that have never heard about Zope. Zope 2 used to offer rapid prototyping and development. People that want to do that today will never learn Zope 2. They will learn Grok, Django, or any framework that allow them to develop a simple application quickly. People wanting to develop a brand new custom complex application will never use Zope 2 alone either. They will start with Plone, or Zope 3. Tell me if I'm wrong, but Zope 2 alone seems only maintained because it is the underlying framework of several big applications like Plone or ERP5. So we don't really need to introduce it in the site. Also, I'm not sure this is a good idea to put Zope2 and Zope3 under the same "Zope" label. They are very different products, with a different learning curve, a different development method, a different audience. I believe we have two options : - separate Zope 2 and Zope 3 in two different folders, with CMF as a subpage of Zope 2. or: - Rename the Zope3 folder to just "Zope", introduce Zope3 as being the new "Zope" platform, and put Zope2 in a subfolder of "Zope". (the current state of the site) Christophe > > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Jan Ulrich Hasecke >
-
Christophe Combelles wrote: > Jan Ulrich Hasecke a écrit : >> >> Am 08.06.2008 um 14:15 schrieb Christophe Combelles: >> >>> Martin Aspeli a écrit : >>>>> - I have reorganized the Project subpages : >>>>> - moved zope2 and CMF to a "Legacy Product" folder (yes I dare!) >>>> This is ok I think, but we need to keep the message that these are >>>> viable, proven platforms. Maybe another word than legacy? >>> >>> What about "Previous Platform"? >>> >> >> Zope 2.X and CMF are actively used. They are not previous platforms. >> >> Generally I try to avoid ever talk about Zope 2 and Zope 3. We mostly >> talk about Zope period. And then explain that Zope is based on a >> component architecture and that there is an application server in the >> downloadable Zope 2.10 for products like Plone. > > Zope 2 is actively used indeed, but do we really need to advertise about > it? I believe the new zope.org site musts attract really new users and > new developers, that have never heard about Zope. Zope 2 used to offer > rapid prototyping and development. People that want to do that today > will never learn Zope 2. They will learn Grok, Django, or any framework > that allow them to develop a simple application quickly. People wanting > to develop a brand new custom complex application will never use Zope 2 > alone either. They will start with Plone, or Zope 3. Tell me if I'm > wrong, but Zope 2 alone seems only maintained because it is the > underlying framework of several big applications like Plone or ERP5. So > we don't really need to introduce it in the site. Opinions differ wildly on that. From my point of view I do not want there to be a hint that Zope 2 is in some way obsolete. That will hurt projects like Plone immensely - people are going to be very hestitant to go with a CMS if the application server it is build on is marked as outdated by the very people who make it. > - separate Zope 2 and Zope 3 in two different folders, with CMF as a > subpage of Zope 2. > > or: > > - Rename the Zope3 folder to just "Zope", introduce Zope3 as being the > new "Zope" platform, and put Zope2 in a subfolder of "Zope". (the > current state of the site) Zope3 is not 'the new Zope'. It is something completely different than Zope2. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@...> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
-
Quoting Wichert Akkerman <wichert@...>: >> Zope 2 is actively used indeed, but do we really need to advertise >> about it? I believe the new zope.org site musts attract really new >> users and new developers, that have never heard about Zope. Zope 2 >> used to offer rapid prototyping and development. People that want >> to do that today will never learn Zope 2. They will learn Grok, >> Django, or any framework that allow them to develop a simple >> application quickly. People wanting to develop a brand new custom >> complex application will never use Zope 2 alone either. They will >> start with Plone, or Zope 3. Tell me if I'm wrong, but Zope 2 alone >> seems only maintained because it is the underlying framework of >> several big applications like Plone or ERP5. So we don't really >> need to introduce it in the site. > > Opinions differ wildly on that. From my point of view I do not want > there to be a hint that Zope 2 is in some way obsolete. That will hurt > projects like Plone immensely - people are going to be very hestitant > to go with a CMS if the application server it is build on is marked as > outdated by the very people who make it. I agree. I think a while back we already had a compromise that we give all Zope projects proper representation on new.zope.org, but when newbies want to learn it, they'll be pushed towards Zope 3 or rather Grok now. Wichert is right that in no way we should make Zope 2 sound obsolete (and given efforts like Five and repoze, Zope 2 may have a bright future after all :)). By the way, I think the three doughnuts on the projects page symbolizes this compromise very well. >> - separate Zope 2 and Zope 3 in two different folders, with CMF as >> a subpage of Zope 2. >> >> or: >> >> - Rename the Zope3 folder to just "Zope", introduce Zope3 as being >> the new "Zope" platform, and put Zope2 in a subfolder of "Zope". >> (the current state of the site) > > Zope3 is not 'the new Zope'. It is something completely different than Zope2. Exactly. Again, the three doughnuts make this very clear. What's also clear is that there's much shared between Zope projects, namely the libraries.
-
Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > I agree. I think a while back we already had a compromise that we give > all Zope projects proper representation on new.zope.org, but when > newbies want to learn it, they'll be pushed towards Zope 3 or rather > Grok now. Wichert is right that in no way we should make Zope 2 sound > obsolete (and given efforts like Five and repoze, Zope 2 may have a > bright future after all :)). > > By the way, I think the three doughnuts on the projects page > symbolizes this compromise very well. I agree as well. We can't say that it's obsolete or legacy. However, we also need to say that if you're unsure where to start, start with Grok and Zope 3 (unless you're starting with Plone or Silva or another *application*, but then you're on the wrong website). If you know what you're looking for, you should find the information without having to go into too many folders. The current navigation is this: - Home page - gives a nice overview - Zope Libraries - explains the unique core of Zope - Zope - talks about ... * this name is too generic I think. Instead, I would say "Zope Application Server". I would then devote a couple of paragraphs on the front page of the "Zope Application Server" section to discuss Zope 2 and Zope 3, and then have sub-folders with download/examples/documentation for each. This implies that the bulk what people today tend to refer to as "Zope 3" and which we are here calling the "Zope libraries" will go elsewhere. "Zope 3" becomes a term applied primarily to the app server (and the Zope 3 ZMI and all that). By corollary, there'll be more content under "Zope libraries" than "Zope application server/Zope3". We'll also need to explain that not all zope libraries are used by/are usable in Zope 2. - Grok - maybe we should move this up above "zope application servers" if we think this is the best starting point? Then explain on the Grok landing page what technologies Grok uses (Zope 3 app server, Zope libraries, ZODB) and then link off to grok.zope.org. - ZODB - talks about the ZODB as a standalone proposition, which is good. - History - I think we should hide this from the main nav (tick "hide from navigation on the settings fieldset") and then just have a link from the front page. It's not at the same level as the other items in the nav. What do you think? Martin
-
Martin Aspeli a écrit : > Philipp von Weitershausen wrote: > >> I agree. I think a while back we already had a compromise that we >> give all Zope projects proper representation on new.zope.org, but >> when newbies want to learn it, they'll be pushed towards Zope 3 or >> rather Grok now. Wichert is right that in no way we should make Zope >> 2 sound obsolete (and given efforts like Five and repoze, Zope 2 may >> have a bright future after all :)). >> >> By the way, I think the three doughnuts on the projects page >> symbolizes this compromise very well. > > I agree as well. We can't say that it's obsolete or legacy. > > However, we also need to say that if you're unsure where to start, start > with Grok and Zope 3 (unless you're starting with Plone or Silva or > another *application*, but then you're on the wrong website). > > If you know what you're looking for, you should find the information > without having to go into too many folders. > > The current navigation is this: > > - Home page - gives a nice overview > - Zope Libraries - explains the unique core of Zope > - Zope - talks about ... > > * this name is too generic I think. Instead, I would say "Zope > Application Server". I would then devote a couple of paragraphs on the > front page of the "Zope Application Server" section to discuss Zope 2 > and Zope 3, and then have sub-folders with > download/examples/documentation for each. > > This implies that the bulk what people today tend to refer to as "Zope > 3" and which we are here calling the "Zope libraries" will go elsewhere. > "Zope 3" becomes a term applied primarily to the app server (and the > Zope 3 ZMI and all that). By corollary, there'll be more content under > "Zope libraries" than "Zope application server/Zope3". > > We'll also need to explain that not all zope libraries are used by/are > usable in Zope 2. > > - Grok - maybe we should move this up above "zope application servers" > if we think this is the best starting point? Then explain on the Grok > landing page what technologies Grok uses (Zope 3 app server, Zope > libraries, ZODB) and then link off to grok.zope.org. > > - ZODB - talks about the ZODB as a standalone proposition, which is good. > > - History - I think we should hide this from the main nav (tick "hide > from navigation on the settings fieldset") and then just have a link > from the front page. It's not at the same level as the other items in > the nav. > > What do you think? I did it as an example on the site : http://new.zope.org/projects/ The folders are like this now: Zope Application Server Zope 2 Downloads Examples Documentation CMF Zope 3 Downloads Examples Documentation Zope3 Libraries Component Architecture (...) Grok ZODB History > > Martin > > > -- > Archive: > http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux/lists/zope-org-redux/archive/2008/06/1212997618606 > > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to > zorg-redux@.... Please contact > zorg-redux-manager@... for questions. > > >-
2008/6/9 Christophe Combelles <ccomb@...>: > The folders are like this now: > > Zope Application Server > Zope 2 > Downloads > Examples > Documentation > CMF > Zope 3 > Downloads > Examples > Documentation > Zope3 Libraries > Component Architecture > (...) > Grok > ZODB > History IMHO, this would be more natural: Grok Zope Application Server Zope 2 Downloads Examples Documentation CMF Zope 3 Downloads Examples Documentation Zope3 Libraries Component Architecture ZODB This way, we are going "down" the stack, from most end-user oriented to most low-level. [History - hidden, just a link from the front page] Martin
-
Martin Aspeli a écrit : > 2008/6/9 Christophe Combelles <ccomb@...>: > >> The folders are like this now: >> >> Zope Application Server >> Zope 2 >> Downloads >> Examples >> Documentation >> CMF >> Zope 3 >> Downloads >> Examples >> Documentation >> Zope3 Libraries >> Component Architecture >> (...) >> Grok >> ZODB >> History > > IMHO, this would be more natural: > > Grok > Zope Application Server > Zope 2 > Downloads > Examples > Documentation > CMF > Zope 3 > Downloads > Examples > Documentation > Zope3 Libraries > Component Architecture > ZODB > > This way, we are going "down" the stack, from most end-user oriented > to most low-level. you're right, done > > [History - hidden, just a link from the front page] How do you hide a link in the navigation menu? Christophe > > Martin > > > -- > Archive: http://www.openplans.org/projects/zorg-redux/lists/zope-org-redux/archive/2008/06/1213004207652 > To unsubscribe send an email with subject unsubscribe to zorg-redux@.... Please contact zorg-redux-manager@... for questions. > > >
-
> How do you hide a link in the navigation menu? Edit the object, then go to the settings fieldset and tick 'hide from navigation'. Martin
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Am 09.06.2008 um 00:56 schrieb Christophe Combelles: > use Zope 2 alone either. They will start with Plone, or Zope 3. > Tell me if I'm wrong, but Zope 2 alone seems only maintained > because it is the underlying framework of several big applications > like Plone or ERP5. So we don't really need to introduce it in the > site. > As far as Plone is concerned new features are implemented the Zope 3 way, which is no wonder because with Five Zope 2.10 is even more than Zope 3. ;-) > Also, I'm not sure this is a good idea to put Zope2 and Zope3 under > the same "Zope" label. They are very different products, with a > different learning curve, a different development method, a > different audience. > > I believe we have two options : > > - separate Zope 2 and Zope 3 in two different folders, with CMF as > a subpage of Zope 2. > > or: > > - Rename the Zope3 folder to just "Zope", introduce Zope3 as being > the new "Zope" platform, and put Zope2 in a subfolder of "Zope". > (the current state of the site) > I thought that the image above was accepted as guideline for the site. It tells that there are Zope Libraries which are used by Grok - convention over configuration framework Zope 3 - ZCML framework Zope 2 - Application Server At least image and navigation should be in sync. Mit freundlichen Grüßen Jan Ulrich Hasecke -- hasecke.com Jan Ulrich Hasecke Schubertstr. 4 42719 Solingen
-
-
-
Christophe Combelles wrote: > Martin Aspeli a écrit : >>> - I have reorganized the Project subpages : >>> - moved zope2 and CMF to a "Legacy Product" folder (yes I dare!) >> >> This is ok I think, but we need to keep the message that these are >> viable, proven platforms. Maybe another word than legacy? > > What about "Previous Platform"? There is nothing 'previous; or 'legacy' about them. I'm willing to bet there are more people using Zope2 and CMF than all Zope3 users combined and multiplied by a decent factor. Even if you only count current active projects. Wichert. -- Wichert Akkerman <wichert@...> It is simple to make things. http://www.wiggy.net/ It is hard to make things simple.
-
-
-
Zope.org Redux
PGP.sig (application/pgp-signature) 1 kB