[Pydotorg-redesign] Next iteration (was "I think that the current site ....")

[Tim Parkin]

Dylan:
>
> Amk:
> > After some c.l.python discussion, here's a revised version of some 
> > tweaks to the current home page. 
>
>But why are we tweaking this design?  Our web site needs far more than
>any amount of incremental revision is likely to give it. Really, it's
>long past time we took this old dog out behind the barn and shot it.
I disagree, the old site is awful and realistically it's going to be end
of the this year / start of next year before relaunching the new site.
In the meantime, lets make the current site more useful. It's against my
interests as the worse the current site looks, the better our redesign
appears but I'll be altruistic about it ;-)

Amk:
>The redesign effort is looking increasingly like the types-sig to me.
The
>types-sig expended lots of discussion time on complicated questions and
>*never* *produced* *anything*.
I'm sure you didn't mean nothing as on my public folder alone there's
9.1Mb of proposed designs/information architecture notes and logos. Also
on the wiki there's prototype html components and proposed navigation
concepts. Here's the latest design if people haven't seen it.
http://pollenation.net/assets/public/python-latest.png

Amk:
>Anyway, there's nothing preventing anyone from grabbing portions of
>python.org with wget, making an improved prototype and putting it on
some
>random IP address. Fred even made a (somewhat controversial) tarball a
>little while ago; that could be repeated.  So, make a prototype!
Well.. There is one thing that is stopping me in particular which is a
lack of official feedback on the design proposal. I don't mind spending
a lot of time building a prototype but would like some sort of
indication that :-

a) We (myself and people on the design/redesign list) are on the right
track
b) If not, why not (and why hasn't it been mentioned)
c) If so then what are the constraints in building html and for the
platform and do we have a provisional "yes we'll use this design as long
as it meets our requirements for accessibility/speed/etc"

I for one would love to get going but, in order to do what I have done
so far, I have had to make assumptions about what the PWC/Python Board
want. In particular (but in no means an indicative or substantial part)
the choice of how to support Netscape. I've had to presume Netscape 4.x
will degrade to a text only type design in order to make the most of the
massive advantages newer (post '98) version browsers can deliver.

We also have put some thought into platform / administration IA etc but
it seems risky carrying on without some buy-in from the PWC/Python
Board. We'd love to build something useful using Zope (and we have
addressed some of the concerns raised) but if it's a 100% no-no, then
there is little point.

To be honest I am just carrying on under the assumption that the scale
of feedback a project like this needs is unlikely and that, in addition,
the PWC/Board are not going to make any commitment apart from a yes/no
once they see a completed proposal. Moving the proposed web designs into
a fully standards compliant and browser compatible state is a
substantial (40+ hour) task to get perfect and I really can't afford to
'waste' that amount of time. And I do mean waste as, unlike python code,
web development builds are extremely difficult to refactor.

To be honest what worries me is carrying on and developing something
with many 100's of hours of mantime invested in it only to be told
"we're doing something else". That would not only upset me but would
severely test my sanity and trust. Understanding this, I shouldn't
really go any further as that isn't something I want to risk. However, I
love Python and see a good future for it. 

What we really need is an official nod to say "great... we like... go
and make some html!"

What do you suggest?

Tim (not disillusioned, just wary of one sided relationships)