[cdwg] OpenSFS web site requirements

[Hamilton, Pam]

Thanks for the input, Chris. I agree with you that the web site RFP needs works and your suggestions are good.

Norm, is this something Cindy can help us with or should the CDWG take on rewriting a draft RFP?

-Pam

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Christopher J. Morrone [mailto:morrone2 at llnl.gov]
> Sent: Friday, August 03, 2012 5:38 PM
> To: Hamilton, Pam; 'cdwg at lists.opensfs.org'
> Subject: Re: [cdwg] OpenSFS web site requirements
> 
> I don't understand this comment:
> 
> "We have attempted to integrate the wiki
> http://wiki.lustre.org/index.php/Main_Page into our website. We have
> not
> been able to make the wiki work."
> 
> What exactly did we try?  Did Oracle give us the source for that?  The
> top level of that is terribly out of date anyway.  But there is content
> under there that we could likely copy (where legal to do so).
> 
> But I'd drop that statement altogether.  What we tried in the past
> isn't
> particularly useful to a web designer.  Instead we need to focus on
> telling the web designer what we want.
> 
> Here's another thing we should drop:
> 
> "Wiki - attempted to integrate MediaWiki; it was too cumbersome and
> difficult to use
> and explain to our working group leads. We need something with a easy
> interface like
> wikipedia"
> 
> Not sure why they would need to know that.  The we can choose any wiki
> we want and set it up independently of the more static web pages.
> 
> I think what we want are really two sets of web pages, with somewhat
> different styles.
> 
> 1) OpenSFS (opensfs.org, www.opensfs.org)
> 2) Lustre (lustre.opensfs.org)
> 
> OpenSFS's pages should be all about the organization, what it does, who
> its members are, lists of activities, etc.
> 
> The Lustre pages on the other hand should not have "OpenSFS" branding
> across the top of the page; they should say "Lustre".  The OpenSFS
> sponsorship should be noted, but more subtly along the bottom.  E.G.
> "brought to you by OpenSFS".  The Lustre pages need to focus on Lustre:
> what it is, how to get it, where to go for help, where to go to get
> involved in development.
> 
> This comment looks bad to me too:
> 
> "Platform/software; currently using Wordpress. We need to be able to
> edit with WYSIWYG editor."
> 
> I think that we would either have a CMS, where content can be edited
> through the web, or use more static pages that are styled through CSS,
> and you can edit the html page in any text editor.  Requiring that the
> entire page be edited through a WYSIWYG editor probably contrains
> designers to using proprietary and expensive tools, which will make
> maintenance more obscure and difficult for those of us involved with
> changing information on the web pages in the future.
> 
> I think we probably need to keep our "requirements" more high level
> like
> this when we start the contract.  It looks like the current pdf takes
> more of a brain-dump approach to listing every possible thing we'd want
> to mention in the web pages.  I would question whether the entire table
> labeled "Audience" should appear in the document at all.
> 
> I imagine that a good web designer will ASK us what the content should
> be and how it needs to be organized, and we would iterate on the look,
> content, and organization with the developer many times.  For intance,
> it is to early to call out details like "we need a link to our revision
> control system" or "we need a link to our issue tracker".  That is just
> content.
> 
> The things we should probably consider and state are:
> 
> 1) Do we want a CMS?  Or do we just more-or-less static web pages +
> CSS?
> 2) Should we state that the pages must be generated by, hosted on, and
> editable from Open Source tools?
> 3) Should state that the pages must render reasonably well in a variety
> of browsers (Firefox, Safari, IE, just as examples), and perhaps make
> correct rendering in a specific set (including version number) part of
> the requirement.
> 4) "Search engine optimization".  Should include reasonable meta data
> and organization so that search engines can properly index the pages.
> 
> I like the "Structure" section.  But I would argue, as I did earlier,
> that weed need two portals: one for OpenSFS, and one for Lustre.
> 
> Under "Capability/features", there are some things that I don't
> understand.  Do we really need our own calendaring solution, or do we
> just need a links to google calendars?  If it is just links then it is
> content, and not a capability/feature.  I would say the same for wiki
> and forum.  I don't see a need for complicated functionality here.
> Solutions already exist that work well, we just need links to them.  So
> then these things are just content, not capability/features.
> 
> Under "Capbility/features" it says "Scroll bar".  What is that???
> 
> Commerce: really???  A system for processing money built-in to the site
> is going to be a great expense for something that we use infrequently
> (LUG).  Can't we handle that through existing services external to the
> opensfs site?
> 
> Ah, in the "AVAILABLE TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES/INTEGRATION ISSUES", it
> gives
> a clue that WYSIWYG is just being used incorrectly.  We don't want
> WYSIWYG really, just interface that normal folks can use.  "Content
> editing through web pages" (implying a CMS) might be a better phrase.
> 
> Thats all for now,
> 
> Chris
> 
> On 08/03/2012 01:53 PM, Hamilton, Pam wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > OpenSFS is in the process of drafting an RFP for getting the OpenSFS
> web site revamped. I've been directed by the execs to gather
> requirements from the CDWG for the web site. There is a draft RFP on
> the OpenSFS home page which does try to capture some requirements
> (http://www.opensfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/opensfs.org-
> RFP_sss5.pdf).
> >
> > Some information in the RFP is dated since OpenSFS now has a
> functional wiki at
> http://www.opensfs.org/foswiki/bin/view/Main/WebHome. I have not had
> time to add any CDWG content yet but hope to start soon. I recommend
> checking out the wiki's functionality and sending in any feedback you
> may have.
> >
> > Here is the start of a list of web site requirements to get us
> thinking about what we need/want:
> >
> > * When one "googles" Lustre, the OpenSFS web site should be at the
> top of the list or close to it
> > * Emulate linuxfoundation.org especially with regard to how working
> groups are handled
> > * Working group pages should be managed by the working group leads
> and facilitate accessing the OpenSFS wiki
> >
> > Web site requirements will be the topic of our next conference call
> but please feel free to respond to this email with your ideas. Stay
> tuned for the announcement of our next conference call.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Pam
> > ___________________________________
> > Pam Hamilton
> > Lawrence Livermore National Lab
> > P.O. Box 808, L-556
> > Livermore, CA  94551-9900
> > E-Mail:  pgh at llnl.gov
> > Phone:  925-423-1332          Fax:  925-423-8719
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cdwg mailing list
> > cdwg at lists.opensfs.org
> > http://lists.opensfs.org/listinfo.cgi/cdwg-opensfs.org
> >
>