[Marketing] Website Redesign

Committees Marketing
1

Dear Marketing Folks,

Your budget includes $20000 for:

"""
Following from Phase 2 above, redesign concepts for the website will be implemented. Including refocus of target groups and content, as well as look and feel
"""

As a contributor to the website I'm concerned about how this is going to work.
How do you intend to turn a consultants design into something that is
merged into what exists, and the ideas that existing contributors have about
how things should work?

I'm concerned that we will end up either:

1) Giving the consultant free reign and the web site is radically altered
resulting in the loss of some existing valuable elements, and more importantly
the alienation of existing contributors who will presumably be left holding
the bag after the consultant is gone again.

- or -

2) Negotiation and reaching consensus with the existing web site contributors
(as well as dealing with the limitations of Drupal) will result in relatively
little being accomplished out of the consultants recommendations resulting in
most of the money/effort being wasted.

--

My suggestion to moderate the likely problems are to take into account the
following issues when selecting a consultant and giving them terms of
reference.

a) Drupal is our portal software and it is unlikely to be changed for the
convenience of the consultant. We have limited expertise to do exotic things
with it so it is best try and limit proposals to what can be accomplished
with it in a practical fashion. It would presumably be prudent to have Tyler
and Wolf involved in setting practical parameters.

b) The consultant should be encouraged to prepare material (content), and
appropriate sidebar (and center pane) entry points to serve the discussed
target groups.

c) I think there is substantial room to alter and restructure the
"About the Foundation" and "FAQ" materials. The results would have to
be vetted of course, but these sections are clearly "on the table"
for improvement.

d) The consultant should not spend too much time dreaming up radical
simplifications that toss things we have already decided to be important
into some seldom seen subpage.

I hope you all understand that there are potentially negative dynamics
that could come into play dropping a short term highly (by volunteer
standards) paid consultant into an existing volunteer driven system and
giving them godlike powers to alter, with no long term responsibility
to maintain.

Needless to say, I'm speaking for myself, not the website committee as
a whole.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

2

IMO: it's about content, not look-and-feel. If you let look-and-feel
into the paddock, a lot of time will be spent juggling colors and
visual elements, and not enough juggling topics and words. Break the
project into two. Do content first, *then* address putting lipstick
on the pig.

P.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com> wrote:

Dear Marketing Folks,

Your budget includes $20000 for:

"""
Following from Phase 2 above, redesign concepts for the website will be
implemented. Including refocus of target groups and content, as well as look
and feel
"""

As a contributor to the website I'm concerned about how this is going to
work.
How do you intend to turn a consultants design into something that is
merged into what exists, and the ideas that existing contributors have about
how things should work?

I'm concerned that we will end up either:

1) Giving the consultant free reign and the web site is radically altered
resulting in the loss of some existing valuable elements, and more
importantly
the alienation of existing contributors who will presumably be left holding
the bag after the consultant is gone again.

- or -

2) Negotiation and reaching consensus with the existing web site
contributors
(as well as dealing with the limitations of Drupal) will result in
relatively
little being accomplished out of the consultants recommendations resulting
in
most of the money/effort being wasted.

--

My suggestion to moderate the likely problems are to take into account the
following issues when selecting a consultant and giving them terms of
reference.

a) Drupal is our portal software and it is unlikely to be changed for the
convenience of the consultant. We have limited expertise to do exotic
things
with it so it is best try and limit proposals to what can be accomplished
with it in a practical fashion. It would presumably be prudent to have
Tyler
and Wolf involved in setting practical parameters.

b) The consultant should be encouraged to prepare material (content), and
appropriate sidebar (and center pane) entry points to serve the discussed
target groups.

c) I think there is substantial room to alter and restructure the
"About the Foundation" and "FAQ" materials. The results would have to
be vetted of course, but these sections are clearly "on the table"
for improvement.

d) The consultant should not spend too much time dreaming up radical
simplifications that toss things we have already decided to be important
into some seldom seen subpage.

I hope you all understand that there are potentially negative dynamics
that could come into play dropping a short term highly (by volunteer
standards) paid consultant into an existing volunteer driven system and
giving them godlike powers to alter, with no long term responsibility
to maintain.

Needless to say, I'm speaking for myself, not the website committee as
a whole.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

3

I disagree :slight_smile:

It's not about content or graphic design, it's about user experience and
findability. A redesign has to be primarily about ensuring that the
site functions as well as possible. You can have all of the content in
the world, or the prettiest site in the world, but they are both useless
if users can't immediately access the information they need. The most
important part of a site design is knowing who your users are, what they
are looking for, and figuring out how to get them to it faster.

Any redesign needs to start from a document like this (unfinished?):
  http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/WebCom_OSGeo_Site_Focus
and be informed by accurate and intensive analysis of the web site's
current traffic patterns. I don't think that we have the latter, and
would recommend something like Google Analytics for proper analysis.
The open source traffic analysis tools do not offer nearly the insight
that can be gained through Analytics, especially with its new custom
reports and segmentation features.

A redesign should also keep in mind search engine optimisation, because
most users will use their favourite search engine to find what they're
looking for rather than go to our main page. Some of our content could
certainly do with some reorganisation, and there are some topics that we
need to write new content for. For instance, searching for "OSGeo
Software" or "OSGeo Projects" or "OSGeo Source Code" do not come up with
useful results in Google. Topics that have individual treatment come up
with good results (such as "OSGeo Sponsor").

We also need to look at adding a search engine to the site. Users that
give up trying to find information via random search terms (and don't
know about the site: modifier) come to our site and are then stuck
trying to navigate to what they want. We provide far too many options
on our main page, and don't address user/role segmentation at all, so
finding what they want will be a frustrating experience. If Drupal's
search sucks, then set up a Google Custom Search Engine. As a
non-profit, we can get one for free that doesn't run ads. I know that
some people want to use open source tools for everything, but we need to
pick our battles and use our limited resources in the most effective way
possible to accomplish _our_ mission.

And yes, finally, we may need a bit of a layout redesign. My preference
would be to drop the left and right menus from the main page, and
simplify the user experience. I think that the Mozilla Foundation is a
good example of this: http://www.mozilla.org/ Apache has gone part of
the way with the "quick-button" links at the top of the page, but I
think they could easily drop the second column on the right:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/

Notice that I didn't talk about colours, logo positioning, etc at all.
It's about functionality. All of this is well within Drupal's
out-of-the-box capabilities.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 08:17
To: Frank Warmerdam
Cc: OSGeo Marketing; Web committee discussions
Subject: Re: [Marketing] Website Redesign

IMO: it's about content, not look-and-feel. If you let look-and-feel
into the paddock, a lot of time will be spent juggling colors and
visual elements, and not enough juggling topics and words. Break the
project into two. Do content first, *then* address putting lipstick
on the pig.

P.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com>
wrote:

Dear Marketing Folks,

Your budget includes $20000 for:

"""
Following from Phase 2 above, redesign concepts for the website will

be

implemented. Including refocus of target groups and content, as well

as look

and feel
"""

As a contributor to the website I'm concerned about how this is going

to

work.
How do you intend to turn a consultants design into something that is
merged into what exists, and the ideas that existing contributors have

about

how things should work?

I'm concerned that we will end up either:

1) Giving the consultant free reign and the web site is radically

altered

resulting in the loss of some existing valuable elements, and more
importantly
the alienation of existing contributors who will presumably be left

holding

the bag after the consultant is gone again.

- or -

2) Negotiation and reaching consensus with the existing web site
contributors
(as well as dealing with the limitations of Drupal) will result in
relatively
little being accomplished out of the consultants recommendations

resulting

in
most of the money/effort being wasted.

--

My suggestion to moderate the likely problems are to take into account

the

following issues when selecting a consultant and giving them terms of
reference.

a) Drupal is our portal software and it is unlikely to be changed for

the

convenience of the consultant. We have limited expertise to do exotic
things
with it so it is best try and limit proposals to what can be

accomplished

with it in a practical fashion. It would presumably be prudent to

have

Tyler
and Wolf involved in setting practical parameters.

b) The consultant should be encouraged to prepare material (content),

and

appropriate sidebar (and center pane) entry points to serve the

discussed

target groups.

c) I think there is substantial room to alter and restructure the
"About the Foundation" and "FAQ" materials. The results would have to
be vetted of course, but these sections are clearly "on the table"
for improvement.

d) The consultant should not spend too much time dreaming up radical
simplifications that toss things we have already decided to be

important

into some seldom seen subpage.

I hope you all understand that there are potentially negative dynamics
that could come into play dropping a short term highly (by volunteer
standards) paid consultant into an existing volunteer driven system

and

giving them godlike powers to alter, with no long term responsibility
to maintain.

Needless to say, I'm speaking for myself, not the website committee as
a whole.

Best regards,
--

---------------------------------------+--------------------------------
------

I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for

Rent

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

4

Jason Birch wrote:

I disagree :slight_smile:

It's not about content or graphic design, it's about user experience and
findability. A redesign has to be primarily about ensuring that the
site functions as well as possible.

Jason,

I believe we also lack a lot of content to serve the needs expressed in
the site focus document. ie. case studies, white papers providing overall
guidance.

I'm generally supportive of your ideas on findability, search optimization
and so forth, though SEO seems like voodoo to me.

And yes, finally, we may need a bit of a layout redesign. My preference
would be to drop the left and right menus from the main page, and
simplify the user experience. I think that the Mozilla Foundation is a
good example of this: http://www.mozilla.org/ Apache has gone part of
the way with the "quick-button" links at the top of the page, but I
think they could easily drop the second column on the right:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/

I honestly can't see this (dropping lots of stuff from the main page) making
that much difference, but I suppose that's why I'm not a user experience guy.

Best regards,
--
---------------------------------------+--------------------------------------
I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam, warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for Rent

5

Frank Warmerdam wrote:

I believe we also lack a lot of content to serve the needs expressed
in the site focus document. ie. case studies, white papers providing
overall guidance.

Yes, understood.

I'm generally supportive of your ideas on findability, search
optimization and so forth, though SEO seems like voodoo to me.

We're in an enviable position. As an authority site (lots and lots of
places link to us) we basically just need to create good content with
descriptive titles and headings, and our pages will do well. There are
a lot of things that we could do better on the current site (better
titles, descriptions so that our SERPs are more attractive, targeting
terms like "open geospatial", etc) but in general we've got good
positioning.

I honestly can't see this (dropping lots of stuff from the main page)
making that much difference, but I suppose that's why I'm not a user
experience guy.

Me neither, not really, but I think that giving new users that end up on
the main page a clear path is important.

Jason

6

+1
Jason, I think you are right on track, and I'm really impressed with the webcom Site Focus page linked below. (First time I've read it). It provides the use cases required to design targeted web pages.

Jason Birch wrote:

I disagree :slight_smile:

It's not about content or graphic design, it's about user experience and
findability. A redesign has to be primarily about ensuring that the
site functions as well as possible. You can have all of the content in
the world, or the prettiest site in the world, but they are both useless
if users can't immediately access the information they need. The most
important part of a site design is knowing who your users are, what they
are looking for, and figuring out how to get them to it faster.

Any redesign needs to start from a document like this (unfinished?):
  http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/WebCom_OSGeo_Site_Focus
and be informed by accurate and intensive analysis of the web site's
current traffic patterns. I don't think that we have the latter, and
would recommend something like Google Analytics for proper analysis.
The open source traffic analysis tools do not offer nearly the insight
that can be gained through Analytics, especially with its new custom
reports and segmentation features.

A redesign should also keep in mind search engine optimisation, because
most users will use their favourite search engine to find what they're
looking for rather than go to our main page. Some of our content could
certainly do with some reorganisation, and there are some topics that we
need to write new content for. For instance, searching for "OSGeo
Software" or "OSGeo Projects" or "OSGeo Source Code" do not come up with
useful results in Google. Topics that have individual treatment come up
with good results (such as "OSGeo Sponsor").

We also need to look at adding a search engine to the site. Users that
give up trying to find information via random search terms (and don't
know about the site: modifier) come to our site and are then stuck
trying to navigate to what they want. We provide far too many options
on our main page, and don't address user/role segmentation at all, so
finding what they want will be a frustrating experience. If Drupal's
search sucks, then set up a Google Custom Search Engine. As a
non-profit, we can get one for free that doesn't run ads. I know that
some people want to use open source tools for everything, but we need to
pick our battles and use our limited resources in the most effective way
possible to accomplish _our_ mission.

And yes, finally, we may need a bit of a layout redesign. My preference
would be to drop the left and right menus from the main page, and
simplify the user experience. I think that the Mozilla Foundation is a
good example of this: http://www.mozilla.org/ Apache has gone part of
the way with the "quick-button" links at the top of the page, but I
think they could easily drop the second column on the right:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/

Notice that I didn't talk about colours, logo positioning, etc at all.
It's about functionality. All of this is well within Drupal's
out-of-the-box capabilities.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org
[mailto:marketing-bounces@lists.osgeo.org] On Behalf Of Paul Ramsey
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 08:17
To: Frank Warmerdam
Cc: OSGeo Marketing; Web committee discussions
Subject: Re: [Marketing] Website Redesign

IMO: it's about content, not look-and-feel. If you let look-and-feel
into the paddock, a lot of time will be spent juggling colors and
visual elements, and not enough juggling topics and words. Break the
project into two. Do content first, *then* address putting lipstick
on the pig.

P.

On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 7:07 AM, Frank Warmerdam <warmerdam@pobox.com>
wrote:
  

Dear Marketing Folks,

Your budget includes $20000 for:

"""
Following from Phase 2 above, redesign concepts for the website will
    

be
  

implemented. Including refocus of target groups and content, as well
    

as look
  

and feel
"""

As a contributor to the website I'm concerned about how this is going
    

to
  

work.
How do you intend to turn a consultants design into something that is
merged into what exists, and the ideas that existing contributors have
    

about
  

how things should work?

I'm concerned that we will end up either:

1) Giving the consultant free reign and the web site is radically
    

altered
  

resulting in the loss of some existing valuable elements, and more
importantly
the alienation of existing contributors who will presumably be left
    

holding
  

the bag after the consultant is gone again.

- or -

2) Negotiation and reaching consensus with the existing web site
contributors
(as well as dealing with the limitations of Drupal) will result in
relatively
little being accomplished out of the consultants recommendations
    

resulting
  

in
most of the money/effort being wasted.

--

My suggestion to moderate the likely problems are to take into account
    

the
  

following issues when selecting a consultant and giving them terms of
reference.

a) Drupal is our portal software and it is unlikely to be changed for
    

the
  

convenience of the consultant. We have limited expertise to do exotic
things
with it so it is best try and limit proposals to what can be
    

accomplished
  

with it in a practical fashion. It would presumably be prudent to
    

have
  

Tyler
and Wolf involved in setting practical parameters.

b) The consultant should be encouraged to prepare material (content),
    

and
  

appropriate sidebar (and center pane) entry points to serve the
    

discussed
  

target groups.

c) I think there is substantial room to alter and restructure the
"About the Foundation" and "FAQ" materials. The results would have to
be vetted of course, but these sections are clearly "on the table"
for improvement.

d) The consultant should not spend too much time dreaming up radical
simplifications that toss things we have already decided to be
    

important
  

into some seldom seen subpage.

I hope you all understand that there are potentially negative dynamics
that could come into play dropping a short term highly (by volunteer
standards) paid consultant into an existing volunteer driven system
    

and
  

giving them godlike powers to alter, with no long term responsibility
to maintain.

Needless to say, I'm speaking for myself, not the website committee as
a whole.

Best regards,
--

---------------------------------------+--------------------------------
------
  

I set the clouds in motion - turn up | Frank Warmerdam,
warmerdam@pobox.com
light and sound - activate the windows | http://pobox.com/~warmerdam
and watch the world go round - Rush | Geospatial Programmer for
    

Rent
  

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing
  
--
Cameron Shorter
Geospatial Systems Architect
Tel: +61 (0)2 8570 5050
Mob: +61 (0)419 142 254

Think Globally, Fix Locally
Geospatial Solutions enhanced with Open Standards and Open Source
http://www.lisasoft.com

7

A LOT of that was Jody, so it's good to hear that he has renewed
interest in the Marketing committee.

It's out of date, but there is still value there.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Shorter
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:40
Subject: Re: [Marketing] Website Redesign

+1
Jason, I think you are right on track, and I'm really impressed with the

webcom Site Focus page linked below. (First time I've read it). It
provides the use cases required to design targeted web pages.

8

I feel absolutely stupid because I've lost this conversation just to be filtered by my mail client to the marketing folder...
it will not be the last time I'll feel stupid. :slight_smile:

If I can say my opinion, I don't see the need for a re-factory of the web site.
If you look at the web site of Apache foundation, as ex, they have a very simple site: a brief mission definition, news, section, links to all resources.
same as ours.

I don't even see a problem to use google.com to access internal pages. I use google.com for most of sites where I don't want to learn yet another fancy structure for a site that has a lot of contents. having a lot of contacts is a problem in any case.
I would not like to see the google search inside the site instead.
Not even google analytics. Been a web master for long time has taught me to avoid scripts that are not fundamental on popular sites.

my 2 cents
Lorenzo

Jason Birch wrote:

A LOT of that was Jody, so it's good to hear that he has renewed
interest in the Marketing committee.

It's out of date, but there is still value there.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Shorter
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:40
Subject: Re: [Marketing] Website Redesign

+1
Jason, I think you are right on track, and I'm really impressed with the

webcom Site Focus page linked below. (First time I've read it). It provides the use cases required to design targeted web pages.
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

9

This year the spanish language chapter grown a lot and debates on the future of our community started to be more and more practice.

as part of the spanish language board (board-es) I've participated to interesting meetings on how to spend some possible funds.
we still have no budget but we are willing to (dreaming is still not a pity, afaik).

one of the things we have focused is what we are doing, as chapter or osgeo, differently from what the single projects do.
they do software, it's clear, and what about us?
I've heard a couple of critics out there about this.

A dream for us would be to spend some funds on that kind of initiatives we have started but would need a professional support to boost.
- the free GIS book. Who doesn't want it?!?
- a well done catalog of educational material (see universities curses) available online in CC and translated in as much languages as possible.
- to see the journal supported in a way to have precise publishing deadline and translations ready.

we know all this initiative are already up and running, we started some of them, but they suffers of continuous stops and it's not easy to see an end.
this are a kind of things that a discontinuous professional support can improve a lot. I guess it is the same for some SAC tasks and so on.

we are hoping to deal with this sponsorships inside our community but I would like to share our ideas, hoping to refine them and/or find external support.

ciao
Lorenzo

Lorenzo Becchi wrote:

I feel absolutely stupid because I've lost this conversation just to be filtered by my mail client to the marketing folder...
it will not be the last time I'll feel stupid. :slight_smile:

If I can say my opinion, I don't see the need for a re-factory of the web site.
If you look at the web site of Apache foundation, as ex, they have a very simple site: a brief mission definition, news, section, links to all resources.
same as ours.

I don't even see a problem to use google.com to access internal pages. I use google.com for most of sites where I don't want to learn yet another fancy structure for a site that has a lot of contents. having a lot of contacts is a problem in any case.
I would not like to see the google search inside the site instead.
Not even google analytics. Been a web master for long time has taught me to avoid scripts that are not fundamental on popular sites.

my 2 cents
Lorenzo

Jason Birch wrote:

A LOT of that was Jody, so it's good to hear that he has renewed
interest in the Marketing committee.

It's out of date, but there is still value there.

Jason

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Shorter
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 11:40
Subject: Re: [Marketing] Website Redesign

+1
Jason, I think you are right on track, and I'm really impressed with the

webcom Site Focus page linked below. (First time I've read it). It provides the use cases required to design targeted web pages.
_______________________________________________
Marketing mailing list
Marketing@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/marketing

_______________________________________________
Webcom mailing list
Webcom@lists.osgeo.org
http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/webcom

10

Jason Birch wrote:

I disagree :slight_smile:

It's not about content or graphic design, it's about user experience and
findability. A redesign has to be primarily about ensuring that the
site functions as well as possible. You can have all of the content in
the world, or the prettiest site in the world, but they are both useless
if users can't immediately access the information they need. The most
important part of a site design is knowing who your users are, what they
are looking for, and figuring out how to get them to it faster.

Any redesign needs to start from a document like this (unfinished?):
  http://wiki.osgeo.org/wiki/WebCom_OSGeo_Site_Focus
and be informed by accurate and intensive analysis of the web site's
current traffic patterns. I don't think that we have the latter, and
would recommend something like Google Analytics for proper analysis.
The open source traffic analysis tools do not offer nearly the insight
that can be gained through Analytics, especially with its new custom
reports and segmentation features.
  

The document stalled (for which I apologize) since I was not involved in the correct committee at the time. It would be very helpful to have current traffic patterns; however we are going to be a bit limited by what is currently available on the website. Many of the "stories" mentioned above reflect the needs of users who exist only in my head (with a few exceptions).

We may do well to look at google trends or something; or talk to those that have been attending conferences lately in order to update the above stories.

And yes, finally, we may need a bit of a layout redesign. My preference
would be to drop the left and right menus from the main page, and
simplify the user experience. I think that the Mozilla Foundation is a
good example of this: http://www.mozilla.org/ Apache has gone part of
the way with the "quick-button" links at the top of the page, but I
think they could easily drop the second column on the right:
http://www.apache.org/foundation/

Notice that I didn't talk about colours, logo positioning, etc at all.
It's about functionality. All of this is well within Drupal's
out-of-the-box capabilities.
  

I am not too worried about the osgeo layout in that respect; I am worried about the member projects - I wish we had sorted this out before mapserver.osgeo.org got a redesign for example.

Jody

PS. I had never met www.map-server.org before - how confusing.