Difference between revisions of "WGO Redesign"

From GIMP Developer Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 6: Line 6:
  
  
=== Assumption ===
+
=== Assumptions ===
 
* We (the royal 'We') could benefit from having more content on WGO, in particular tutorials.
 
* We (the royal 'We') could benefit from having more content on WGO, in particular tutorials.
 
* Lowering the barrier-to-entry can help entice users to generate new content.
 
* Lowering the barrier-to-entry can help entice users to generate new content.
Line 24: Line 24:
  
 
== Summary ==
 
== Summary ==
 +
From an architecture standpoint, the general idea is to separate content from presentation.
 +
This is already how the current site exists, though the implementation is a little clunky.
 +
 +
# The proposed idea is to separate WGO content into more user-friendly discrete pieces, such as individual [http://daringfireball.net/projects/markdown/ Markdown] text files.
 +
# These text files (+assets) would then be passed through a processor to be turned into static HTML assets.
 +
# These static HTML assets would then be served to users.

Revision as of 15:41, 2 April 2015

Why?

The email from Cristobal on the Gimp-web list recently prompted this further discussion. His summary of work and ideas were documented on this page.


Assumptions

  • We (the royal 'We') could benefit from having more content on WGO, in particular tutorials.
  • Lowering the barrier-to-entry can help entice users to generate new content.
  • A new facelift can't hurt from a PR standpoint.


Benefits

There are a few possible benefits from conducting a redesign now:

  • Better organization of content
If the content organization is approached as described below.
  • Modern Look
  • A chance to consider usability and ease of access for users (and to improve it)
  • Lowering the barrier to entry for new contributors/contributions.


Summary

From an architecture standpoint, the general idea is to separate content from presentation. This is already how the current site exists, though the implementation is a little clunky.

  1. The proposed idea is to separate WGO content into more user-friendly discrete pieces, such as individual Markdown text files.
  2. These text files (+assets) would then be passed through a processor to be turned into static HTML assets.
  3. These static HTML assets would then be served to users.