Re: [Revampers] www.ietf.org website revamp community review committee - 20170627 - notes

[Greg Wood <[e-mail]>]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the close review!

At this point the big items for this group (in my mind) are suggestions about how to be sure the site meets the SOW requirements and specific reviews for the non-IETF participant audiences. That said, any and all input and feedback is welcome, particularly general site functionality.

A caveat: Torchbox has been diligently working through tickets and many that have been fixed on staging haven’t yet been deployed on https://beta.ietf.org . I expect/hope that to happen in the next day or so.

Some notes inline:

> On Jun 27, 2017, at 5:03 PM, Robert Sparks <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Other small content things (is it time to critique content things?)
> 
Input is definitely appreciated, though the top-100 pages each will get a close review in the next few weeks, ideally by the groups/folks directly connected to the content, so things will be fine-tuned. For example, the “Hot topics” pages still need to be sorted.
> There are two pages named WG pages, one under "Groups" and one under "How we work". Should probably reconcile that to one page.
> 
Yes. Thanks for pointing that out.

> On the upcoming/99 page, there's a link labelled "Reporting Problems" that goes to the "Reporting Potential Harassment" page (which has its own link on the upcoming/99 page). That should probably go to a page about how to report bugs or meeting trouble or something else. 
> 

I agree. This is a page the secretariat ‘owns’ (as they own the meeting pages on the current site). So I will flag that for them.

> RjS
> 
> On 6/27/17 3:48 PM, Robert Sparks wrote:
>> I'm listening to the recording and playing with the site in parallel.
>> 
>> One thing I noticed right away on the home page is that the "What's new" section is showing very old articles from the blog - it looks like its sorting things in oldest to newest and showing the oldest perhaps? Newest to oldest would work better.
>> 
Indeed. This seems to be a bug in the page template. I’ve filed a ticket with Torchbox.

>> Similarly, it's making IETF100 more important than IETF99 - I suspect it should make the next upcoming meeting more prominent.
>> 
Agree. I’ve filed a ticket with Torchbox to adjust.

Thanks again,
-Greg

>> RjS
>> 
>> 
>> On 6/27/17 2:35 PM, Greg Wood wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> 
>>> Here is a link to folder with the recording (MP4 of the video) from the conversation last week:
>>> 
>>> https://isoc.box.com/v/IETF-Website-CRC-201706 <https://isoc.box.com/v/IETF-Website-CRC-201706>
>>> 
>>> Notes are also below. Please let me know if I have missed anything or there are any questions.
>>> 
>>> Here are a few highlights:
>>> 
>>> • Send notes from the call around (and the recording) to spark input/questions <—THIS NOTE
>>> • Suggestions about specific individuals to review the beta site<—ENCOURAGED!
>>> • Plan to release beta.ietf.org ~8 July (before IETF 99)
>>> • Check-in with Revampers after IETF 99/before production <—LIKELY FIRST WEEK OF AUGUST
>>> 
>>> Thanks!
>>> 
>>> -Greg
>>> 
>>> NOTES
>>> 
>>> 0. Agenda bash
>>> 
>>> 1. Introduction
>>> Community Review Committee == Revampers
>>> 
>>> 2. Review of project process and progress
>>> 	• So far...
>>> 	• SOW development
>>> 	• Input from interviews with audiences (participants, potential participants, non-participants)
>>> 	• Review by CRC and community 
>>> 	• Preview for community at IETF 98 (including update at the WG Chairs meeting)
>>> 
>>>      b) Currently.
>>> 	• finishing content, working with content review groups (EMO Directorate (nee EDU-Team), IESG, Secretariat
>>> 	• Fixing bugs and implementing features with Torchbox
>>> 	• Testing with groups (non-participants, potential participants)
>>> 
>>>     c) Upcoming
>>> 	• Review by IESG and IAB
>>> 	• Planning for community “beta” preview to be released around 8 July--in advance of IETF99
>>> 	• “Office hours” to be held at IETF 99 (similar to IETF 98) and update at the WG Chairs meeting
>>> 	• Public release on the schedule for early August
>>> 
>>> 3. Review/tour of revamped website
>>> https://beta.ietf.org <https://beta.ietf.org/> 
>>> ietfwagtail / ietfshowme
>>> 
>>> 	• Responsive mode
>>> 	• Blog posts
>>> 	• Meetings
>>> 	• Quick links for current IETF participants
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 4. Discussion
>>> 
>>> Requesting CRC input:
>>> 	• How to test/confirm technical requirements from SOW including:
>>> 		• HTML/Open standards
>>> 		• Plug-ins and Javascript
>>> 		• Accessibility
>>> 		• Responsive design
>>> 		• SOW: https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Website-SOW-20140604-Final.pdf <https://iaoc.ietf.org/documents/IETF-Website-SOW-20140604-Final.pdf> 
>>> 
>>> 	• Suggestions about IETF community review process
>>> 		• Including suggestions about specific individuals to review
>>> 
>>> 	• Next steps on website review development
>>> 
>>> Comment: Need a new name for the Tools “quick links” tab
>>> 	• Suggestion “Popular” instead of “Tools” for the name
>>> 
>>> 5. AOB/Next steps
>>> 	• Send notes from the call around (and the recording) to spark further input
>>> 	• Check-in with Revampers after IETF 99/before production
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Revampers mailing list
>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/revampers <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/revampers>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Revampers mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/revampers <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/revampers>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Revampers mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/revampers