GeoMoose.org Cleanup

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
3 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

GeoMoose.org Cleanup

James Klassen
I've been busy cleaning up geomoose.org as can be seen here [1].  The
changes so far have generally been consistency, formatting, and some
minor re-wording.

However, I have also come across some changes I would like to make,
but feel they are more significant and should be run past the list
first.

* The Gallery:
  https://www.geomoose.org/info/gallery.html
 
  Appears to only be referenced from a link at the end of the front page.

  Has bad links and links to sites that are no longer GeoMoose based.
  We have had issues keeping this page up to date in the past.  I
  wonder if we wouldn't be better off just getting rid of it.

  Any objections?

* FAQ Page:
  https://www.geomoose.org/faq.html
 
  The "Why GeoMoose?" question has some nice prose in it but it is
  also significantly out of date (it references 2.6).  I feel that it
  also duplicates the function of the paragraph under "Welcome to
  GeoMoose" on the front page.

  I feel it should go.  Objections?

* Support Page:

  The FAQ questions "Can I get support" and "How do I get a bug fixed"
  feel to me like they should be the basis for a top level support
  page.  These seem like important topics and I don't think people
  think to look for them on the FAQ page.

  I propose we separate them out to their own support page and replace
  the FAQ link in the header with a link to this new support page.
  The link to the FAQ would remain as a green button on the front
  page.

* Commercial Support:
  https://www.geomoose.org/info/commercial_support.html

  Currently linked only from the FAQ page (or under my proposal would
  be linked under the new Support page).

  If we go ahead with GeoMoose.com, GeoMoose.com might take the place
  of the Commercial Support page on GeoMoose.org.

  If we don't, we need to at a minimum give this page a once over.
  The links back to OSGeo are broken and the companies list should
  probably be refreshed.

* Demos

  Back at the end of last year, I created a pull request for
  geomoose.org to add a jump page for the various demos instead of
  having only the current development branch available as the demo
  link.  We still host the 2.9 demo and 3.x has the desktop demo and a
  more beta quality mobile demo. The objection to the PR at the time
  was that the mobile demo wasn't polished enough yet.  I would
  suggest, that since that is still true, we mark the mobile demo as a
  beta for now.

  My thoughts are we should expose these other options to site
  visitors.

  If we are intent on keeping the Gallery, I'd consider moving it to a
  section of this jump page under our hosted demos.  (But only if we
  knew the sites we link to are willing to be listed and will be well
  maintained examples of GeoMoose in the wild.)

* Missing items:

  A features list???

  A GeoMoose 3.x contributors guide.  (The existing guide is very 2.x
  centric).  This could also live on https://geomoose.github.io/gm3/.
  There is a GM 3 style guide, but we should have something talking
  about submitting Ask on the List, submit a Pull Request, public
  email declaring contributions are under GeoMoose (MIT) license and
  they are authorized to declare that, etc.

[1] https://github.com/geomoose/geomoose-website/compare/4541168...615234f

_______________________________________________
geomoose-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GeoMoose.org Cleanup

Eli Adam
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Jim Klassen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've been busy cleaning up geomoose.org as can be seen here [1].  The
> changes so far have generally been consistency, formatting, and some
> minor re-wording.
>
> However, I have also come across some changes I would like to make,
> but feel they are more significant and should be run past the list
> first.

Lots of changes are fine without running by the list too.

>
> * The Gallery:
>   https://www.geomoose.org/info/gallery.html
>
>   Appears to only be referenced from a link at the end of the front page.
>
>   Has bad links and links to sites that are no longer GeoMoose based.
>   We have had issues keeping this page up to date in the past.  I
>   wonder if we wouldn't be better off just getting rid of it.
>
>   Any objections?

If we dish this off to GeoMoose.com, I'm fine with removing it.  If
not, then I'll work on maintaining it some.

>
> * FAQ Page:
>   https://www.geomoose.org/faq.html
>
>   The "Why GeoMoose?" question has some nice prose in it but it is
>   also significantly out of date (it references 2.6).  I feel that it
>   also duplicates the function of the paragraph under "Welcome to
>   GeoMoose" on the front page.
>
>   I feel it should go.  Objections?

I'd rather see it moved/merged to the front page.  The 2.6 reference
is not exactly out of date (still entirely true and we've come farther
too: "As of the 2.6 version, GeoMoose includes new powerful vector
capabilities.").  The specific aspects of the FAQ text I like are
"...a useful web-based GIS environment for those who need something
that works from the first download... a fully operating web-based
parcel application... without the need to write a single line of
code."  I don't care for the this part of the text on the front page
"very light weight for servers making it easy to handle a large number
of users, with a large number of layers, and a large number of
services without stressing a server."  No one has cared about that for
10+ years.  There may be merit to it and maybe people should care but
they don't.

>
> * Support Page:
>
>   The FAQ questions "Can I get support" and "How do I get a bug fixed"
>   feel to me like they should be the basis for a top level support
>   page.  These seem like important topics and I don't think people
>   think to look for them on the FAQ page.
>
>   I propose we separate them out to their own support page and replace
>   the FAQ link in the header with a link to this new support page.

Yes, this would be good.

>   The link to the FAQ would remain as a green button on the front
>   page.
>
> * Commercial Support:
>   https://www.geomoose.org/info/commercial_support.html
>
>   Currently linked only from the FAQ page (or under my proposal would
>   be linked under the new Support page).

Yes, needs to go somewhere more useful as I've commented in another thread.

>
>   If we go ahead with GeoMoose.com, GeoMoose.com might take the place
>   of the Commercial Support page on GeoMoose.org.

While it may be on GeoMoose.com too, I'd like to keep a copy on .org as well.

>
>   If we don't, we need to at a minimum give this page a once over.
>   The links back to OSGeo are broken and the companies list should
>   probably be refreshed.

Yes, should be refreshed.  I think that I'm supposed to annually
review and refresh it but have not done so.

>
> * Demos
>
>   Back at the end of last year, I created a pull request for
>   geomoose.org to add a jump page for the various demos instead of
>   having only the current development branch available as the demo
>   link.  We still host the 2.9 demo and 3.x has the desktop demo and a
>   more beta quality mobile demo. The objection to the PR at the time
>   was that the mobile demo wasn't polished enough yet.  I would
>   suggest, that since that is still true, we mark the mobile demo as a
>   beta for now.
>
>   My thoughts are we should expose these other options to site
>   visitors.

Yes, definitely.  See PR which leaves the mobile as unlisted.  We can
deal with that later but we definitely want to expose the other links.
This is sort of half-fixing since it still leaves off the mobile
version but lets us otherwise continue on.  Sorry about delay on this.

>
>   If we are intent on keeping the Gallery, I'd consider moving it to a
>   section of this jump page under our hosted demos.  (But only if we

I'm a little bit apprehensive about this since errors in third party
sites could get reported to the project, or other features that have
been added to those sites are reported as missing from the demo.

>   knew the sites we link to are willing to be listed and will be well
>   maintained examples of GeoMoose in the wild.)

This would make me less apprehensive about it.

Best regards, Eli

>
> * Missing items:
>
>   A features list???
>
>   A GeoMoose 3.x contributors guide.  (The existing guide is very 2.x
>   centric).  This could also live on https://geomoose.github.io/gm3/.
>   There is a GM 3 style guide, but we should have something talking
>   about submitting Ask on the List, submit a Pull Request, public
>   email declaring contributions are under GeoMoose (MIT) license and
>   they are authorized to declare that, etc.
>
> [1] https://github.com/geomoose/geomoose-website/compare/4541168...615234f
>
> _______________________________________________
> geomoose-psc mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
_______________________________________________
geomoose-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: GeoMoose.org Cleanup

blammo

See inline . . .




 
On Thu, Jan 25, 2018 at 3:54 PM, Jim Klassen <[hidden email]> wrote:
> I've been busy cleaning up geomoose.org as can be seen here [1].  The
> changes so far have generally been consistency, formatting, and some
> minor re-wording.
>
> However, I have also come across some changes I would like to make,
> but feel they are more significant and should be run past the list
> first.

Lots of changes are fine without running by the list too.

Agreed

>
> * The Gallery:
>   https://www.geomoose.org/info/gallery.html

>
>   Appears to only be referenced from a link at the end of the front page.
>
>   Has bad links and links to sites that are no longer GeoMoose based.
>   We have had issues keeping this page up to date in the past.  I
>   wonder if we wouldn't be better off just getting rid of it.
>
>   Any objections?

If we dish this off to GeoMoose.com, I'm fine with removing it.  If
not, then I'll work on maintaining it some.

I had the same thought about moving it to the .com side.

>
> * FAQ Page:
>   https://www.geomoose.org/faq.html

>
>   The "Why GeoMoose?" question has some nice prose in it but it is
>   also significantly out of date (it references 2.6).  I feel that it
>   also duplicates the function of the paragraph under "Welcome to
>   GeoMoose" on the front page.
>
>   I feel it should go.  Objections?

I'd rather see it moved/merged to the front page.  The 2.6 reference
is not exactly out of date (still entirely true and we've come farther
too: "As of the 2.6 version, GeoMoose includes new powerful vector
capabilities.").  The specific aspects of the FAQ text I like are
"...a useful web-based GIS environment for those who need something
that works from the first download... a fully operating web-based
parcel application... without the need to write a single line of
code."  I don't care for the this part of the text on the front page
"very light weight for servers making it easy to handle a large number
of users, with a large number of layers, and a large number of
services without stressing a server."  No one has cared about that for
10+ years.  There may be merit to it and maybe people should care but
they don't.

No argument on any of this, but they should care, especially when setting up side by side with those commercial offereings on the same hardware.  The number of layers is a big issue once the count goes up.  Just a comment here though.  Probably not something the first timer will be worried about either.

>
> * Support Page:
>
>   The FAQ questions "Can I get support" and "How do I get a bug fixed"
>   feel to me like they should be the basis for a top level support
>   page.  These seem like important topics and I don't think people
>   think to look for them on the FAQ page.
>
>   I propose we separate them out to their own support page and replace
>   the FAQ link in the header with a link to this new support page.

Yes, this would be good.

Agreed.

>   The link to the FAQ would remain as a green button on the front
>   page.
>
> * Commercial Support:
>   https://www.geomoose.org/info/commercial_support.html
>
>   Currently linked only from the FAQ page (or under my proposal would
>   be linked under the new Support page).

Yes, needs to go somewhere more useful as I've commented in another thread.

>
>   If we go ahead with GeoMoose.com, GeoMoose.com might take the place
>   of the Commercial Support page on GeoMoose.org.

While it may be on GeoMoose.com too, I'd like to keep a copy on .org as well.

Might be able to figure out how to use a common list if needed to.

>
>   If we don't, we need to at a minimum give this page a once over.
>   The links back to OSGeo are broken and the companies list should
>   probably be refreshed.

Yes, should be refreshed.  I think that I'm supposed to annually
review and refresh it but have not done so.

>
> * Demos
>
>   Back at the end of last year, I created a pull request for
>   geomoose.org to add a jump page for the various demos instead of
>   having only the current development branch available as the demo
>   link.  We still host the 2.9 demo and 3.x has the desktop demo and a
>   more beta quality mobile demo. The objection to the PR at the time
>   was that the mobile demo wasn't polished enough yet.  I would
>   suggest, that since that is still true, we mark the mobile demo as a
>   beta for now.
>
>   My thoughts are we should expose these other options to site
>   visitors.

Yes, definitely.  See PR which leaves the mobile as unlisted.  We can
deal with that later but we definitely want to expose the other links.
This is sort of half-fixing since it still leaves off the mobile
version but lets us otherwise continue on.  Sorry about delay on this.

Jim's idea of labelling the Mobile Demo as BETA is a good way forward for listing.

>
>   If we are intent on keeping the Gallery, I'd consider moving it to a
>   section of this jump page under our hosted demos.  (But only if we

I'm a little bit apprehensive about this since errors in third party
sites could get reported to the project, or other features that have
been added to those sites are reported as missing from the demo.

>   knew the sites we link to are willing to be listed and will be well
>   maintained examples of GeoMoose in the wild.)

This would make me less apprehensive about it.

Not sure how to handle validaing these ideas, but all for it.

bobb

Best regards, Eli

>
> * Missing items:
>
>   A features list???
>
>   A GeoMoose 3.x contributors guide.  (The existing guide is very 2.x
>   centric).  This could also live on https://geomoose.github.io/gm3/.

>   There is a GM 3 style guide, but we should have something talking
>   about submitting Ask on the List, submit a Pull Request, public
>   email declaring contributions are under GeoMoose (MIT) license and
>   they are authorized to declare that, etc.
>
> [1] https://github.com/geomoose/geomoose-website/compare/4541168...615234f



_______________________________________________
geomoose-psc mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/geomoose-psc