Received: from makus.postgresql.org (makus.postgresql.org [98.129.198.125]) by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC899105A46A for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 06:29:22 -0400 (AST) Received: from mail-gx0-f174.google.com ([209.85.161.174]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1RSR7l-0000i4-Kk for pgsql-www@postgresql.org; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:29:22 +0000 Received: by ggnr5 with SMTP id r5so2137983ggn.19 for ; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:29:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.182.77.164 with SMTP id t4mr2922578obw.9.1321871344735; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:29:04 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.38.201 with HTTP; Mon, 21 Nov 2011 02:29:04 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:29:04 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: PostgreSQL website redesign From: Dave Page To: Thom Brown Cc: Simon Riggs , "w^3" Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archive-Number: 201111/31 X-Sequence-Number: 20307 On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Thom Brown wrote: > On 19 November 2011 17:12, Simon Riggs wrote: >> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Thom Brown wrote: >> >>> As you will no doubt be aware, the PostgreSQL website is overdue for a >>> fresh lick of paint, so we are planning to give it a new look in the >>> near future. >> >> It's not clear to me that redesigning the website will give us >> anything at all, but it will definitely drain time and focus away from >> things like writing patches or working out clear and workable designs >> for new features. > > Well we can't abandon one area of the project just because there's > another area that's considered more important than everything else. > The community is constantly involved in arranging conferences and PUG > meetups, infrastructure changes and assisting others with general > PostgreSQL problems. =A0And likewise, this is another are of the project > that not everyone will necessarily be interested in. > >> The existing design works just fine in every way, so "we" are not >> unhappy. In fact the existing site is fairly well tuned with many >> people's feedback and pixel level arguments now done and dusted. > > Well it's 7 years old now. =A0It could be argued that people will see > the same PostgreSQL that they saw 7 years ago. =A0As such, we haven't > progressed, innovated or become modern in any way. =A0The current design > could be seen as PostgreSQL stagnating and been neglected. =A0Design > communicates as well as words. =A0Ours may be saying "nothing new to see > here". =A0Of course, changing too often would have an equally negative > effect, suggesting that we're inconsistent, unstable and can't make up > our minds. > >> We do need some marketing, but redesigning websites without purpose is >> not marketing. >> >> Please state the reasons you think a redesign is worth the effort. And >> how that is a priority over spending the same time and money on actual >> marketing, i.e. external contacts, whitepapers, press and such like. I >> grant that is likely more fun to redesign a website but that doesn't >> make it worthwhile. > > This is probably something -core would like to give a more complete > answer on since it was their decision. =A0But my views are as above. I think your answers above do pretty well hit the nail on the head. We want to ensure that the all areas of the project visibly progress and don't stagnate, and updating our web presence is a part of that. We are also aware that the current website does not meet the needs of everyone by any stretch of the imagination. In particular, it's quite unfriendly to new visitors, and gives them little in the way of guidance to find the information they're likely to need. --=20 Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company