[Pydotorg-redesign] I think that the current site structure needs to be scrapped altogether.

[Dylan Reinhardt]

On Sun, 2003-09-21 at 10:40, Aahz wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 21, 2003, Dylan Reinhardt wrote:
> > The site is unfriendly, cold, and unattractive.
> > Nothing about it is going to enhance our reputation or build our user
> > base.
> 
> That's opinion, not fact.  

It is an informed opinion based on relevant experience. I spent several
years creating marketing and communications materials whose results were
measurable.  What's your opinion based on?


> > We're left spinning our wheels because the
> > people who have decision-making authority appear to think that the site
> > is actually pretty good.  By almost anything other than open source
> > hacker standards, it is not.
> 
> Again opinion.  

Again, *informed* opinion.


> If you look at successful sites such as Amazon.com or
> cnn.com, I think it's hard to argue that python.org does significantly
> worse at the organizational level.

First off, CNN's success has almost nothing to do with its web site and
Amazon's success has been propped by significant inflows from outside
their core business.  Amazon's longer-term success is yet to be proven.

But even taken as given that they are good examples, I'm astonished you
can't tell how much better both of those sites are at presenting and
managing information.  Both sites manage 1000's of times as much content
as www.python.org, yet each one is easier to navigate.

CNN's top bar consists of a search box, some branding and advertising
and *nothing* else.  CNN enables browsing by sorting hundreds of pages
of new content per day into 14 key categories.  The remaining 85% of the
screen is link-dense, but notice what an effort is made to put a *small*
number of links "above the fold" and how most of the really link-dense
content is stuffed below the fold and *sorted* into headers that mirror
the topic browsing buttons featured higher-up in the page.  

Amazon makes a far more cluttered first impression the last couple
years, but it's still worlds better than the Python web site.  Though
the first page is a bit scatter-shot, the site quickly adapts to your
usage and narrows its focus.  If you allow cookies, that is.  :-)

Also, I'll point out something *both* those sites make extensive use of:
graphics.  Another thing: typography.    Maybe they all look the same
when you're browsing in lynx, but for the other 99.99% of us using the
*graphical* web, there's a world of difference in terms of quality and
usability.

$.02,

Dylan