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

[Greg Wood <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mark,

Thank you very much for the review. A few notes below:

> On Jun 27, 2017, at 10:01 PM, Mark Nottingham <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Regarding the "tools" / "sidebar" issue -- I think that it's likely that active IETF participants are going to migrate to using datatracker as their "home" page, and that's fine.
> 
> It does mean that datatracker needs to be improved to suit that purpose; adding a few links in appropriate places should do the trick (and I note that there's a LOT of whitespace on the datatracker front page :).
> 
> If that's coordinated with the tools folks, it could be ready by 99, and doing so might reduce the amount of concern / complaints about the new site. We could also drop the extra "tools" menu.

This aligns with the in-person feedback we got at IETF 98, though it would require work that is out of scope for this project. 

However, some did indicate that losing the left side bar would interrupt some folks’ current workflow. Most of them indicated that a set of links that was one-step away form the home page (or which could be bookmarked directly), would be acceptable.

I should stress we received overwhelmingly positive feedback on the new site, and that this was the most consistent piece of feedback I received.

> 
> Otherwise, just a few nits:
> 
> * "Understanding our documents" on the front page should probably be something like "Understanding the IETF”

Agree this needs to be clarified.

> 
> * The IETF logo looks out of place in a white box on the banner; can we get a transparent-background version with the type reversed? It might require using a different background colour for the banner.

Yes, I think this would require design changes. This is exactly the design we reviewed previously, though that was a while ago! And, others have noted it. I’ve filed a ticket as a feature request.

> 
> * The top navigation doesn't seem particularly well organised; there seems to be some duplication and awkward categorisations. E.g., many of the entries under "Internet Standards" would fit equally well under "How we work" as well as "about" -- this is confusing.

Thanks for this feedback. There is an intended logic behind the structure based on the initial audience research.. I can provide the gory details if you’d like. It is something I will test and tease out in the follow-up conversations with audiences over the next few weeks.

> 
> * There seems to be a non-existant "Making the Internet work better" page in the bread crumbs.

Yes—there is bug in some templates that show the home page twice, once as a home icon and once with the title of the page. I’ve filed a ticket.

Thanks again!

-Greg

> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 
>> On 28 Jun 2017, at 5:35 am, Greg Wood <[e-mail]> 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
>> 
>> 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 
>> 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 
>> 
>> 	• 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]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/revampers
> 
> --
> Mark Nottingham   https://www.mnot.net/
>