[Rpm-ecosystem] rpm.org redesign feedback

Jan Zelený jzeleny at redhat.com
Tue Apr 14 14:01:57 UTC 2015


On 10. 4. 2015 at 09:33:25, Radek Holy wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> as for https://github.com/lkardos/rpm/wiki, looks good to me. The structure
> is very clear, I'd say.
> 
> What I don't like is that in the end, there is almost no content. It's just
> a list of links to other resources. It evokes a feeling that RPM does not
> want to bother with a documentation. I personally don't trust any
> documentation that is outside of the project's website. But I assume that
> you are the authors of most of the linked documents so that is not your
> case. It's just the feeling.
> 
> Also the wiki format... For me, if a project uses a wiki as the content
> management system, it means that it's either a draft of the final website
> or that they have it just to have a website but that they don't want to use
> it to attract/educate users. Or even that users are the ones who
> does/should write the content. I mean, a wiki website does not look like a
> presentation of a modern project. But you know, DNF's "website" is maybe
> even worse...
> 
> But definitely I think it's a good start and I like it more than the current
> site. AFAIK, the goal was mainly to make the website more usable and I
> think that this was achieved. The critique above is more a suggestion where
> to focus in the future if there is a will.

I agree that we need to work on the presentation but as you have already 
figured out, the goal of the first phase to make the information better 
structured to give us some idea what kind of information do we want to have 
there and how to structure it ...


A few suggestions:
==================

Documentation:
First of all, I'd move the text about books to the bottom. People looking for 
online information will not be primarily interested in books, no matter if 
they are online or not. To be perfectly honest, I'm not sure about the section 
at all, it's informational value is not that high, maybe just making the text 
significantly shorter and leaving just the really important stuff might help 
improving this?

Second thing that hit me on this page is that some of the items in the 
Packages Documentation are not clickable. Not sure what to think of them, but 
I'd either delete them or link them some other documents. The same applies for 
Developer Documentation.

Download source:
First I'd consider renaming this to just Downloads. Other than that I like 
this section, it is quite straightforward and completely fulfills its purpose. 
Just one thought: would it make sense to include something like this: 
http://www.gimp.org/downloads/? You know, something like "this is how you 
install rpm on your distro, that might not be rpm-centric".

Getting help:
You are missing this mailing list in "Getting Help" :-) Other than that it is 
quite ok, even though I'm not completely sure about Reporting Bugs but I guess 
we need to make that one clear ourselves first ...

Contribute:
Add the git repo url to the "Contributing Source Code" section and link the 
items in the list of known limitations to relevant documents. Contributing 
Ideas and Contributing Help don't sound like an important sections, I'd 
probably delete them or merge them into one that says "Contribute any other 
way that you think can help us". Last but not least, I wonder if the 
information in "Contributing Documentation" is accurate (requesting access to 
wiki and stuff).


Other than that I think this is a great start, thanks Lubos!

Jan


More information about the Rpm-ecosystem mailing list