- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: computerbank digest, Vol 1 #5 - 6 msgs
- From: Sam Reid <email@example.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 02:36:00 +1000
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
- Delivered-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <20010707031401Z163834email@example.com> <3B492D99.BF4A912F@uts.edu.au>
- User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux 2.4.3 i686; en-US; rv:0.9.1) Gecko/20010607
Thanks very much for the positive and constructive feeback, Fred (and
everyone else visiting the test site).
Frederick Fery wrote:
>My comments from the testing site
>2/ from a user point of view
>That kind of web site is very refreshing and easy to navigate.
>It would be good to have the Australian and States websites consistent. Using different
>colours and special logos for the states websites.
I've experimented with slightly modifying nuke to allow seperate web
sites to use common database tables for news, users and other content
while leaving each one independantly configurable (logo, colours, Nuke
addons) and it looks promising so far. I'll hopefully have the CB test
site doing that this afternoon so you can check it out if you like.
>I think the banner should merge more into the site design. Same level as the CB logo and
>move the search box down a bit. It is just a bit of space wasted at the top, and on a
>small display it make a big difference.
Good point. There's a couple of other design things that could be
improved for accessibility that I noticed last night while showing the
test site to my Dad on his rather old 'puter.
>3/Computer bank users?
>Do you have information about CB users? What they want, need when they check the
We have some data at http://www.computerbank.org.au/stats, for what it's
worth. Possibly this could be the subject of our introductory Nuke poll.....
>4/Computer bank web strategy?
>Do you want to create a strong web presence on the national level or states level or
>Where do you want to send your web users: to the main site, or to the states sites?
I'd like to see it be as integrated as possible, while still leaving
enough flexibility for seperate states to do their own thing as they see
fit. It seems to me to be a Good Thing to drive as much traffic through
the national site first as possible. If it doesn't have to be driven
very far, just sort of dropped off round the corner, so much the better.
>Is there any need for 5 states sites and the Australian one using phpnuke style?
>If you have the main Australian site and the states sites like phpnuke using the same
>features (calendar, chat...) it might be a bit confusing for people to have 2 different
>calendars, chat rooms, news stories, download sections....
See my thoughts above on a modified multiple-personality Nuke sharing
some database tables. The more I look at doing this the easier it is
>a/ The Australian site could be more simple (static) with a quick intro blurb, some
>corporate information, and links to the states sites, which would have all those dynamic
>news, chat, download stuffs.
>b/ Or, The main Australian site should be the only site using some of the nuke features
>(calendar, chat, download) and the states sites could only link to it.
>It would be easier to maintain, to control and avoid to duplicating the information, and
B) Definately. It would be nice to get ppl (recipients& trainees, maybe)
involved in sharing maintainence of the site (adding links, posting
comments, helping newbies, etc.) and it would be a shame to rule out
non-HTML-literate people from maintaing content.
>You need lots of resources to maintain those sites. Nuke makes it easier but you still
>need people to do it. I found always disappointing to see "dynamic" websites not updated
>on a regular basis.
That's why I'd like it to be as easy as possible and as enjoyable as
possible for those people being introduced to running a site for the
first time. Maybe I'm weird but I do find this stuff fun...