I'm just going to reply to the original email. There has been some good discussions
in the thread though and for the most part I agree with other emails.
Most of my comments will be inline, but in general:
I like the idea of using colors and lots of your ideas around APIs, doc areas, etc... My
main concern is about drastically changing the current site as we've had several
redesigns ( a couple before you came, and then you last one, and this proposed on).
I'd like to make sure we explore integrating some of your ideas, but keeping core
site mostly intact. So lets work on color scheme's, content updates,
API/coding presentations, etc... within the context of the current site if at all
On Nov 4, 2013, at 10:24 AM, Hylke Bons <hbons(a)redhat.com> wrote:
So Jay asked me to look at how the website content is structured and how
to improve it. Since we have so much content, it gets confusing very
Here's a mockup of a possible solution. I'm better at explaining things
in pictures than in words, so please have a look. I'll explain things in
more detail below.
I've tried to keep every subproject use case based, and explain the use
case before features. See this as a bigger picture, and don't focus on
the graphic design too much, it's there to help explain the structure of
the project, and is not necessarilly a final graphical design in any way
(though if you like it we can make it work!), but I wanted to show how
different colour palettes can help explain the project and give a better
sense of where you are on the website.
As I mention I really do like the color coding, and especially being use-case driven. I
also agree with corrine that on the home page I'd like to make sure we keep the
platform icons (I like those a lot as well), but perhaps work in use-cases (below, above,
etc...), or use case drive in the sub-pages?
I've done a lot of research on the project, but some things may be
wrong. So your feedback on that would be greatly appreciated. Even after
spending many months with the project, I still don't fully grasp
everything (which shows part of the problem).
I've split up the project into three main subprojects: "AeroGear Core",
"AeroGear Push", and "AeroGear Security". These three are the main
and use different icons and colour codings throughout the website to
guide people. Each subproject has "client" and "server" components.
Server pieces being appended by "Server Component" and may be standalone
or an addin to something. Client (API) pieces follow "Project.Namespace"
format. This way, there's never any confusion about what we're talking
about in the documentation and marketing materials.
+1 on color scheme - and agree with server/client aspects of each. We really have 2
matrixes here; platform (iOS, Android, etc..) & feature (use-case) perhaps there is a
paradigm or structure to showing both somehow?
Splitting up documentation. "documentation" can be a broad term. I
suggest splitting it up in three parts to easily find what you're
looking for: "Setting up" (downloading and boatstrapping a dev
environment), "Examples" (how to use the API in your environment to get
started), "API Documentation" (speaks for itself), and "Tutorials"
(setting up more complex environments and API usage). This covers most
of the documentation that is currently on aerogear.org
and will make it
a lot easier to browse.
+100 our doc sections needs a good cleaning, organizing, and a better way to navigate and
3. Coding languages
Where the API is unified across all platforms (hopefully most of it), we
can generalise example docs, and show a switcher for code blocks that
shows how to do a certain thing in a particular language using the
+1 I like the idea of common docs, with some context switch ability to shift platform.
This will not always be possible but I think it could be on many of our features. It
might also help point out issues or mis-matches between libraries.
4. 1:1 mappings
I'd like to see the iOS, Android and Javscript APIs be self-contained
things that you can just drop in and use, with 1:1 mappings (what you
get on Android for a (sub)project, is what you get on iOS). There could
be technical reasons why these things are split up the way they are now,
let me know if so. I could be totally wrong on this too.
As above there is not always a 1:1 mapping.
- Where do we fit in Cordova?
As Erik said - Cordova is a another core platform and should be featured.
- AeroGear Auth, Controller?
These are things I'm not sure yet how they would fit in the proposed scheme.
I think this is a step in the right direction, and I really hope it is
helpful. Let's iterate on this. Let me know what you think and how we
can improve. Looking forward to hear your opinions on this.
Good stuff Hylke, and sorry for the delay getting back to you!
aerogear-dev mailing list