Website - www.dfey.org

[Tim Dobson-2]

Ok, everybody's patience is wearing thin, but lets keep our brains in
gear and think before we speak.

As Robert Leverington stated, and as has been widely agreed. Wiki's are
unsuitable main pages.

Two (as far as I know) main avenues have been put forward for the main
site. I'll portray these best I can, but please be aware that I do lean
one way and this is only my best attempt.

Concept One:
Static front page. Blog for announcements, meeting announcements etc,

Concept Two:
No dynamic content - Static simplistic homepage with several links to
simplistic pages off from it. Modelled on in concept, if not in
implementation.


Discuss.


Tim

[Robert Leverington]

On 2009-07-27, Tim Dobson wrote:
> Concept One:
> Static front page. Blog for announcements, meeting announcements etc,
>
> Concept Two:
> No dynamic content - Static simplistic homepage with several links to  
> simplistic pages off from it. Modelled on in concept, if not in  
> implementation.

My personal opinion would be to use the latter, I don't think we'd have
enough regular updates for a blog and in any case it would probably just
go stale.  Furthermore an entirely static site will encourage discussion
about content.  Announcements could simply be listed on a page and
removed when they expire, or something of that nature.

Ideally all pages would use the same template though, otherwise it would
be far from professional.

--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl.me.uk/

[Mike Little]

2009/7/27 Robert Leverington <[hidden email]>:

> On 2009-07-27, Tim Dobson wrote:
>> Concept One:
>> Static front page. Blog for announcements, meeting announcements etc,
>>
>> Concept Two:
>> No dynamic content - Static simplistic homepage with several links to
>> simplistic pages off from it. Modelled on in concept, if not in
>> implementation.
>
> My personal opinion would be to use the latter, I don't think we'd have
> enough regular updates for a blog and in any case it would probably just
> go stale.  Furthermore an entirely static site will encourage discussion
> about content.  Announcements could simply be listed on a page and
> removed when they expire, or something of that nature.
>
> Ideally all pages would use the same template though, otherwise it would
> be far from professional.
>

I feel I really need to pipe up now. For either option the answer is WordPress.

5 minute install (15 if it's your first time),
does 'static' pages,
doesn't need to do blog (,but can when you are ready)
Search engine friendly
Valid xhtml output
thousands of off the shelf templates to choose from
easy contact form,
can pull in external news to keep if fresh
etc ,etc
100% open source (GPL 2), of course

* Find a simple template at http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/ that
you like -- don't spend too long over it, it takes 10 minutes to
change it to something else if you don't like it. --
* point me at the high res copy of the logo
* find some copy for the first few pages
* and I'll set it up for you some time in the next few days.

Go!



Mike
--
Mike Little
http://zed1.com/

[Joe-23]

Mike Little wrote:

> 2009/7/27 Robert Leverington <[hidden email]>:
>> On 2009-07-27, Tim Dobson wrote:
>>> Concept One:
>>> Static front page. Blog for announcements, meeting announcements etc,
>>>
>>> Concept Two:
>>> No dynamic content - Static simplistic homepage with several links to
>>> simplistic pages off from it. Modelled on in concept, if not in
>>> implementation.
>> My personal opinion would be to use the latter, I don't think we'd have
>> enough regular updates for a blog and in any case it would probably just
>> go stale.  Furthermore an entirely static site will encourage discussion
>> about content.  Announcements could simply be listed on a page and
>> removed when they expire, or something of that nature.
>>
>> Ideally all pages would use the same template though, otherwise it would
>> be far from professional.
>>
>
> I feel I really need to pipe up now. For either option the answer is WordPress.
>
> 5 minute install (15 if it's your first time),
> does 'static' pages,
> doesn't need to do blog (,but can when you are ready)
> Search engine friendly
> Valid xhtml output
> thousands of off the shelf templates to choose from
> easy contact form,
> can pull in external news to keep if fresh
> etc ,etc
> 100% open source (GPL 2), of course
>
> * Find a simple template at http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/ that
> you like -- don't spend too long over it, it takes 10 minutes to
> change it to something else if you don't like it. --
> * point me at the high res copy of the logo
> * find some copy for the first few pages
> * and I'll set it up for you some time in the next few days.
>
> Go!
>
>
>
> Mike

What about Drupal or Joomla or something?

Joe

[Mike Little]

2009/7/28 Joe <[hidden email]>:
> What about Drupal or Joomla or something?
>

Both far too complex for what is required.

The fact that a few static pages is an option makes WordPress the
ideal solution.

...and I'm not just saying that because I co-founded it.


Mike
--
Mike Little
http://zed1.com/

[Robert Leverington]

On 2009-07-28, Mike Little wrote:

> I feel I really need to pipe up now. For either option the answer is WordPress.
>
> 5 minute install (15 if it's your first time),
> does 'static' pages,
> doesn't need to do blog (,but can when you are ready)
> Search engine friendly
> Valid xhtml output
> thousands of off the shelf templates to choose from
> easy contact form,
> can pull in external news to keep if fresh
> etc ,etc
> 100% open source (GPL 2), of course
>
> * Find a simple template at http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/ that
> you like -- don't spend too long over it, it takes 10 minutes to
> change it to something else if you don't like it. --
> * point me at the high res copy of the logo
> * find some copy for the first few pages
> * and I'll set it up for you some time in the next few days.
>

I don't think setting up a Wordpress instance is the biggest barrier at
the moment, in fact at one point I was one click away from setting it up
- but then someone whinged that I hadn't consulted the list on what the
sitename was going to be (even though it could easily be changed at any
point).

Once discussion started again on the list Tim made an excellent case for
having an entirely static site, which I think we should still consider.
For a start it would be significantly easier to style ourselves given
that there would not be a necessity to incorporate things like comments,
and so on.

While personally I do not have a significant personal preference, I
think this is something we should definitely spend time discussing since
it will be hard to turn around.  Making rash decisions based upon the
time it takes to set up is counter productive.

--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl.me.uk/

[Mike Little]

2009/7/28 Robert Leverington <[hidden email]>:
>
> I don't think setting up a Wordpress instance is the biggest barrier at
> the moment, in fact at one point I was one click away from setting it up
> - but then someone whinged that I hadn't consulted the list on what the
> sitename was going to be (even though it could easily be changed at any
> point).
>

The biggest barrier seems to be the endless talking about it. The
problem with theorising about something is that it can go on forever.

Get a site up (and a wiki is not a site in this context), try it, then
constructive comments can be made on something concrete and changes
implemented instantly if needed, quickly if not.

> Once discussion started again on the list Tim made an excellent case for
> having an entirely static site, which I think we should still consider.

I do not believe there is any case for a static site with more than
two or three pages in preference over a WordPress based site, given
the technical competence of the group, and unless your are on
free/cheap hosting with no scripting or database.


> For a start it would be significantly easier to style ourselves given
> that there would not be a necessity to incorporate things like comments,
> and so on.
>

Completely untrue. If you can produce me a static XHTML page of the
design I can turn it into a WordPress template very simply.


I didn't even bother to mention some of the other advantages: if you
want to increase the community, you can offer an infinite number RSS
feeds,  subscriptions to the site, the ability to build the community
on the web (comments on the web are more open than a conversation on a
mailing list).


> While personally I do not have a significant personal preference, I
> think this is something we should definitely spend time discussing since
> it will be hard to turn around.  Making rash decisions based upon the
> time it takes to set up is counter productive.
>

It's not hard to turn around at all. I can make a static copy of a
WordPress site in minutes. (it's called wget).
WordPress also supports usable export of all it's data.


Anyway, my offer still stands.



Mike
--
Mike Little
http://zed1.com/

[Robert Leverington]

On 2009-07-28, Mike Little wrote:
> The biggest barrier seems to be the endless talking about it. The
> problem with theorising about something is that it can go on forever.
>
> Get a site up (and a wiki is not a site in this context), try it, then
> constructive comments can be made on something concrete and changes
> implemented instantly if needed, quickly if not.

Absolutley, but the problem is that if someone does set a site up to try
it out there will be someone whinging about it not being a group
decision - regardless of intent.

Tim mentioned writing an e-mail about this, so I'm going to wait until
that is posted - and depending on what it says I'll go right ahead and
finish the installation I started before people started moaning.  We can
review it after a couple of weeks or something.

> > Once discussion started again on the list Tim made an excellent case for
> > having an entirely static site, which I think we should still consider.
>
> I do not believe there is any case for a static site with more than
> two or three pages in preference over a WordPress based site, given
> the technical competence of the group, and unless your are on
> free/cheap hosting with no scripting or database.
>
>
> > For a start it would be significantly easier to style ourselves given
> > that there would not be a necessity to incorporate things like comments,
> > and so on.
> >
>
> Completely untrue. If you can produce me a static XHTML page of the
> design I can turn it into a WordPress template very simply.

I'm sure this will be appreciated if we go down that route, than you for
the offer.

>
> I didn't even bother to mention some of the other advantages: if you
> want to increase the community, you can offer an infinite number RSS
> feeds,  subscriptions to the site, the ability to build the community
> on the web (comments on the web are more open than a conversation on a
> mailing list).

You make a convincing argument for Wordpress.
 
> > While personally I do not have a significant personal preference, I
> > think this is something we should definitely spend time discussing since
> > it will be hard to turn around.  Making rash decisions based upon the
> > time it takes to set up is counter productive.
> >
>
> It's not hard to turn around at all. I can make a static copy of a
> WordPress site in minutes. (it's called wget).
> WordPress also supports usable export of all it's data.

This defeats the point of having a static site in the first place.

--
Robert Leverington
http://rhl.me.uk/

[Tim Dobson-2]

I'm aware Robert has also replied to this and brought up some new
points, but I'll reply to each mail separately.
See comments inline:

Mike Little wrote
> The biggest barrier seems to be the endless talking about it. The
> problem with theorising about something is that it can go on forever.
>
> Get a site up (and a wiki is not a site in this context), try it, then
> constructive comments can be made on something concrete and changes
> implemented instantly if needed, quickly if not.

I don't really think this is the best solution.
The conundrum is about how to resolve the two conflicting points of view
on how the site is envisaged to be used.

Simply installing wordpress doesn't actually solve any of the underlying
conflicts, it gives a common platform that both groups might agree on
but both groups would prefer to have a site used in fairly different ways.
Making quick decisions on personal opinion can be easier, but ultimately
harmful and unhelpful to the community.

>> Once discussion started again on the list Tim made an excellent case for
>> having an entirely static site, which I think we should still consider.
>
> I do not believe there is any case for a static site with more than
> two or three pages in preference over a WordPress based site, given
> the technical competence of the group, and unless your are on
> free/cheap hosting with no scripting or database.

I don't really think we should be looking at this on a technical basis.

In a similar way in which we were looking for the best logo for the
group, we are looking for the best site for the group, regardless of
anything else.

*IF* the best site for the group is a fairly simple set of html pages we
should not instantly dismiss this based on the premise that we've bought
a VPS and thus should make full use of it or that we have great
technical skills inhouse which we should make use of.

But I do believe there is a case for a mainly static site.
By static, it must be noted that I am actually referring to the content
not changing with any great frequency, not necessarily, whether or not
it is hand coded or rendered by a scripted CMS.

I don't think it is actually beneficial for me to point out in this
particular email where I believe Wordpress is unsuitable for what I'd
like to see, because I don't think that our discussions about how the
site would be used, should pivot around how the site is implemented.

There are many ways of implementing both ideas, neither *have* to be
done in Wordpress.

I'm very pleased to have input and support from someone who is evidently
very passionate about it (for those who don't know, Mike just
resurrected Manchester Wordpress User Group) but I think for the time
being discussions should probably be mainly be those directly involved
with the group as young people,

Cheers,

Tim

[Tim Dobson-2]

Robert Leverington wrote:

> On 2009-07-27, Tim Dobson wrote:
>> Concept One:
>> Static front page. Blog for announcements, meeting announcements etc,
>>
>> Concept Two:
>> No dynamic content - Static simplistic homepage with several links to  
>> simplistic pages off from it. Modelled on in concept, if not in  
>> implementation.
>
> My personal opinion would be to use the latter, I don't think we'd have
> enough regular updates for a blog and in any case it would probably just
> go stale.  Furthermore an entirely static site will encourage discussion
> about content.  Announcements could simply be listed on a page and
> removed when they expire, or something of that nature.
>
> Ideally all pages would use the same template though, otherwise it would
> be far from professional.

Well it's worth bearing in mind "style" isn't necessarily related to
"template".

Template is to do with layout of the content on the page, style deals
with how it all looks.

Multiple templates don't necessarily look unprofessional (well not in my
opinion at least)
http://www.getgnulinux.org/linux/
is a different template to
http://www.getgnulinux.org/

I don't think a blog is really the right answer for DFEY.org -
individual groups should really be announcing their meetings - they
might wish to have their own blogs to etc but for the time being I think
  we'd be best off with a site with no time orientated update system,
with concise, short, articles about what DFEY is, why DFEY exists etc,
how to get involved etc being displayed and providing links to relevant
resources elsewhere.

Tim

[Chris Hilliard]

I think that Wordpress with RSS would be a useful tool, and may reduce
the bandwidth requirements if the site gains masses of pictures, as
well as making a significant amount of the web work both automated and
easy to pass on - a static XML or HTML site has a tendency to develop
as many as four different styles as a web developer has moved on and
not left any of the tools or instructions for maintaining the site - a
standardised template and wordpress would theoretically solve that
issue.

As stated, Drupal and Joomla! would be like using an orbital laser to
open a peanut as far as I can see, although that is just my personal
experience.

I feel that a blog and RSS feeds would be the best option for the
dissemination of information relating to the group overall, but only
if it is updated with some regularity - this means that we would
possibly need to set up an editorial and hunting team to bring news,
events and meetings to the blog and RSS feeds, and I, for one, would
be more than happy to help with that if it was decided that that was
the route that we wanted to go as a community.

A question that we need to ask ourselves about the idea of a heavily
static site is, how do we show visitors that this isn't a deserted
site? how do we keep interested surfers visiting again and again? If
the information is purely static, there will be no need for people to
visit the site, and at which point it becomes as useful as a coaster
for a mug - it looks ok, serves a purpose but is never really looked
at for any great amount of time, and it appears that the group has
either abandoned the site or fallen apart completely, which is not the
signal we want to be giving out as far as I can see. But again, this
is based on personal experience and beliefs.

thanks,
badspyro

On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Tim Dobson<[hidden email]> wrote:

> Robert Leverington wrote:
>>
>> On 2009-07-27, Tim Dobson wrote:
>>>
>>> Concept One:
>>> Static front page. Blog for announcements, meeting announcements etc,
>>>
>>> Concept Two:
>>> No dynamic content - Static simplistic homepage with several links to
>>>  simplistic pages off from it. Modelled on in concept, if not in
>>>  implementation.
>>
>> My personal opinion would be to use the latter, I don't think we'd have
>> enough regular updates for a blog and in any case it would probably just
>> go stale.  Furthermore an entirely static site will encourage discussion
>> about content.  Announcements could simply be listed on a page and
>> removed when they expire, or something of that nature.
>>
>> Ideally all pages would use the same template though, otherwise it would
>> be far from professional.
>
> Well it's worth bearing in mind "style" isn't necessarily related to
> "template".
>
> Template is to do with layout of the content on the page, style deals with
> how it all looks.
>
> Multiple templates don't necessarily look unprofessional (well not in my
> opinion at least)
> http://www.getgnulinux.org/linux/
> is a different template to
> http://www.getgnulinux.org/
>
> I don't think a blog is really the right answer for DFEY.org - individual
> groups should really be announcing their meetings - they might wish to have
> their own blogs to etc but for the time being I think  we'd be best off with
> a site with no time orientated update system, with concise, short, articles
> about what DFEY is, why DFEY exists etc, how to get involved etc being
> displayed and providing links to relevant resources elsewhere.
>
> Tim
>
>
>