<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7226.0">
<TITLE>Re: [documentation] top pages, need some thought?</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV id=idOWAReplyText20165 dir=ltr>
<DIV dir=ltr><FONT face=Arial color=#000000 size=2>Perhaps set a short
definitive time/date for ending the discussion. It needs help sooner then
later. It should be something that writers/marketers can really have some
fun with. </FONT></DIV></DIV>
<DIV dir=ltr><BR>
<HR tabIndex=-1>
<FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> documentation-bounces@drupal.org on behalf
of Charlie Lowe<BR><B>Sent:</B> Wed 1/11/2006 9:15 AM<BR><B>To:</B> A list for
documentation writers<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [documentation] top pages, need
some thought?<BR></FONT><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<P><FONT size=2>I agree. There are problems with this page. But the problem
is<BR>indicative of the whole About section. It's more like a wikipedia
of<BR>various pages that are all filed in the same section rather than
having<BR>an overall rhetorical strategy which guides the crafting of all of
the<BR>pages and their organization.<BR><BR>Back in May, I posted a proposal for
rethinking and restructuring this<BR>section:<BR><BR><A
href="http://drupal.org/node/23106">http://drupal.org/node/23106</A><BR><BR>I
think I would revise this proposal a little now, but perhaps it would<BR>be
useful as a starting point for rethinking the About Drupal handbook.<BR>Once we
have an overall rhetorical strategy and organizational structure<BR>for this
handbook, then we would be in even a better position to know<BR>what needs to go
on each page.<BR><BR>Bčr Kessels wrote:<BR>> Hi,<BR>><BR>> I was
reading <A href="http://drupal.org/node/22963">http://drupal.org/node/22963</A>
(is drupal right for you). And came<BR>> to the conclusion that that part
needs some love.<BR>><BR>> One thing that bothers me most, is that one
will conclude from that page, if<BR>> anything can be concluded at all, that
drupal is always right for the reader.<BR>><BR>> Maybe we should
add:<BR>> * A summary with some user profiles of people who *can* use
drupal<BR>> * A summar of people who should *not* use drupal<BR>> * A
pointer to the services page explaining that certain people should not<BR>>
bother diving any deeper, but et somone to hold their hand, or do it for<BR>>
them.<BR>><BR>> I beleive that that page, atm is telling nothing, really,
while it ould be a<BR>> very nice first "street map" and gatekeeper for
Drupal.<BR>><BR>> Anyone willing to take this?<BR>><BR>>
Bčr<BR>--<BR>Pending work: <A
href="http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/">http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/</A><BR>List
archives: <A
href="http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/">http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/</A><BR><BR></FONT></P></DIV>
</BODY>
</HTML>