From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Mar 30 09:23:49 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7DD916A4CE for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:23:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp3.pacifier.net (smtp3.pacifier.net [64.255.237.173]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B4ED243D3F for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:23:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from charles@coppersoftware.com) Received: from COPPERMAWXP (ip168.gte250.dsl-acs2.sea.iinet.com [209.20.250.168]) by smtp3.pacifier.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id B00826DD22 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:23:47 -0800 (PST) From: "Charles Oppermann" To: Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 09:23:35 -0800 Organization: Copper Software MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Office Outlook, Build 11.0.5510 In-Reply-To: <20040330102525.GA27612@cimbali.dssrg.curtin.edu.au> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2096 Thread-Index: AcQWQZYXgNWayri6RBOT0+MDnCsEGAANEQ9A Message-Id: <20040330172347.B00826DD22@smtp3.pacifier.net> Subject: RE: The Website X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2004 17:23:50 -0000 This is a good discussion. Actually, I think the freebsd.org web site has an attractive look to it currently. The problem, IMHO, is that traditionally, UNIX folks place more emphasis on textual content and less on what they consider "flashy" graphics. UNIX has never been a "pretty to look at" OS. Commercial web sites are created by marketers, while products are created by engineers. Marketers know that eye-catching design and content editing will help the reader form a positive opinion of what's being presented. Engineers tend to think that the content is enough and doesn't need embellishing. Since FreeBSD is driven by developers and not marketers, there will be a natural tendency towards less visual appeal. Plus, as a volunteer project, the priority is on content first, presentation second. I like the current web site. I'd be interested in an example of how it could be made better. I agree entirely with the premises. I spent my career at Microsoft at a developer and manager. For web-based collaboration, they use SharePoint, which looks and feels a lot like the "My MSN" tools at http://my.msn.com. Obviously, Microsoft uses IIS with ASP and ASP.NET. Most intranet pages are edited with FrontPage. They look good and work well. Now I'm consulting at Cisco, and the department I'm in uses a Wiki variation called TWiki for group collaboration. It's mostly text, and while very customizable, it's not direct manipulation. For example, I can choose all sorts of colors for my TWiki page, if I put in the correct color codes. In SharePoint, colors are presented in color. Functionality-wise, both are the same. Text-only or mostly text-based pages do tend to seem less professional than others that are presented with a quality style. Even given the same textual content, quality presentation will tip the scales in favor of the "flashy" approach. Charles Oppermann, charles@coppersoftware.com, http://weblogs.asp.net/chuckop/