[aerogear-dev] Website restructure

[Hylke Bons]

Hi Jay,

On 25/11/2013 14:41, Jay Balunas wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> 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 aerogear.org 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 possible.

What do you mean exactly by "core aerogear.org"? I'm not really sure if 
you're talking about the graphical design or the structure here. I'm 
assuming the latter, just making sure.

> 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).
>>
>> 1. Naming
>> I've split up the project into three main subprojects: "AeroGear Core",
>> "AeroGear Push", and "AeroGear Security". These three are the main focus
>> 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?

If all libraries work on all platforms then I don't we don't think we 
need something like this (we just need to mention which platforms are 
available). If not, then yes, we need to somehow present that in a way 
that doesn't conflict with the bigger picture. This is what I meant with 
the library-platform mapping. As said, I' not really at home with all 
the libraries.


>> 2. Documentation
>> 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 view.

I'm so glad you agree with this! Apart from the subprojects presentation 
I think this is the point on which we can benefit the most. I already 
saw Erik has made some great headway this. Also, it's probably the 
biggest task ahead of us site-wise...

>> 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
>> AeroGear API.
> +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.

Can we figure out a list which these are?
This way I can figure out how we can present the exception without 
distracting from the bigger picture.


>> Missing pieces:
>> - Where do we fit in Cordova?
> As Erik said - Cordova is a another core platform and should be featured.
I'll be on that.


>> - 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!

Sorry for the delay as well. ;)

Thanks,

Hylke


>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Hylke
>> _______________________________________________
>> aerogear-dev mailing list
>> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev
>
> _______________________________________________
> aerogear-dev mailing list
> aerogear-dev at lists.jboss.org
> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev