[ZWeb] zope web status report 2006-02-06

Martijn Faassen faassen at infrae.com
Thu Feb 9 05:17:32 EST 2006

Martin Aspeli wrote:
> Hi Martijn,
>> * are we going to target Zope 3 only with this site, or Zope 2 as 
>> well?  I wrote text to cover both, as Zope 2 is currently the 
>> breadwinner of  most of us. I think we can get enthusiasm more easily 
>> for Zope 3  however; nobody is going to write Zope 2 tutorials. What 
>> do we do?
> I would say, let's not bite off more than we can chew. Getting a punch  
> web-site is not easy. The hard part is reducing the amount of content, 
> not  creating it. I'd say focus on Zope 3 for now - it's what we want 
> to  promote as the next big thing, it's what realistically holds a 
> candle to  e.g. Rails and it's more "pythonic" in the sense that the 
> rest of the  python world may take more of an interest in it.

I agree that Zope 3 is what we can muster the most attention for.

I'm still hopeful we can at least swap out zope.org's frontpage and 
initial pages with something better that describes both Zope 2, Zope 3, 
and its relationship. Quite a bit of text is already written that 
attempts that which is in codespeak svn.

 From there on I expect we focus mostly on Zope 3.

Then again, I'd be okay too if we'd just end up with a zope3.org; I can 
rewrite my text.

>> * we need to answer the question whether we want a famous  
>> low-amounts-of-minutes "how do you build app Foo in Zope 3" 
>> screencast.  If so, someone will need to design it.
> I think Paul Everitt has done some screen casts before. You should talk 
> to  him about his experiences and what software he uses.

Yes, he showed me some work he's doing on zope 3 related screencasts and 
I think this is excellent. I'm not likely to starting to produce 
screencasts myself directly any time soon, though for a Zope 3 
beginner's tutorial I'm interested in contributing in working out the 

>> * are we going to do a newsletter or not? I worry about having it be 
>> up  to date, but if we get some volunteers I'm not against it. If this 
>> turns  out to be hard, then we'd better focus on the website, not a 
>> newsletter,  as this gives us far more marketing pay-off. (zope.org is 
>> currently  anti-marketing zope)
> Who subscribes to a newsletter? :-)
> Again, let's do the big-wins first. Newsletters can be added if the  
> traffic and volunteers warrant it.

See elsethread discussion with Michael Haubenwaller: the newsletter 
effort will run on planetzope.org for the time being, so we can stop 
worrying about it in the context of a zope website for now.

>> Volunteers
>> ----------
>> * we need inspired writers to improve the texts and organize it 
>> further.  We need a good marketing message.
> I don't think I'm far enough into zope 3 to come up with much of this, 
> but  I'm quite good with reviewing text and making sure it's clear, 
> concise and  punchy. I'd certainly like to help with that.

Please review the text already hiding out in svn here:



>> * we need start collecting Zope 3 documentation we can put online. We  
>> need to mine what's there online right now, approach the creators with 
>> a  proposal for a new home (we could even have a mockup of it all in 
>> the  grand new design, see next point), and process the documents so 
>> we can
>> include it.
> I would caution against throwing everything in there that is vaguely 
> good.  Quality must be the first priority, and seriously - no wikis. 

I agree quality control is important, and I agree on no wikis (we can 
look at integrating zopewiki.org and so on later, but it shouldn't be 

> This would  need review and control, not the potential to grow into 
> another zope.org.  Existing documents would probably need to be 
> reformatted for style and  layout, and we'd have to think carefully 
> about providing a good picture.

Yes. Let's make a procedure for that:

* find the document you think would be good to have

* propose it on this list

* if it gets the +1s, go ahead and contact the document author for 
permission to include it as part of a new zope(3).org and whether we can 
download and edit it. The list discussion can also result in a good 
place in the overall structure that we're developing that the document 
can be put into.

* If we get this permission, reformat (if necessary) this document into 
restructured text and check it into our SVN. We need to have a credits 
file we need to update, and also a pattern in restructured text for 
marking the original author and editor of this document.

> I actually quite like the Django tutorial  
> (http://www.djangoproject.com/documentation/tutorial1) because it's 
> easy  to follow, bite-sized, and I could get a pretty good idea of how 
> it works  by skimming the code + screenhots and skipping most of the text.
> As a visitor, I need to have a single place to start, and a clear path  
> through the information, not just a dump of information that I have to  
> wade through myself. And most importantly, all the documentation (and I  
> mean all of it) needs to be consistent, not only in style and message, 
> but  in the development patterns presented. I know zope 3 is powerful 
> and  great, but don't throw every combination out there all at once. 
> People who  want to invest in the framework will have plenty of time to 
> discover all  that. What we need to do is make it feasible for them to 
> take that plunge.

I agree completely with this. Less well structured information is 
beneficial to large amounts of confusing information.

That said, I think having a section with links outside the site would 
still be useful, and I think it can be structured ("related material 
elsewhere" sections) in a way so that it doesn't disturb the main 
pattern of information. This is not of the primary importance though.

>> * does anyone know a good web designer who can design a solid 
>> looking,  serious, but still exciting website for zope?
> We need one. Coders make poor visual designers. :)

There are no coders here, we're just all copy editors and such. :)



More information about the Zope-web mailing list