[drupal-docs] Drupal vs Mambo

[Charlie Lowe]

Morbus Iff wrote:
>> *If* the use of the term is receptive to part of our target 
>> audience--i.e. it attracts them to Drupal by helping them to correctly 
>> conceptualize what they can do with Drupal--then it is a useful term 
> As I've mentioned 
> before, I wouldn't want social software to be the ONLY thing used to 
> describe Drupal because that'd be sticking Drupal into a tiny hole (as 
> much as describing it as "weblog software" would).

+1

Definitely, I think we have to be looking at multiple approaches.


> 
> Regardless, I'd much rather prefer a feature-based approach then a 
> buzzword-based approach (again, see the definition of "buzzword"). 

First, though, we need an audience-based approach to determine what we 
need to focus on. The problem I can see with features is that Drupal has 
so many, it requires "featuring" a different feature set for different 
audiences. I suspect that buzzwords and general concepts would be most 
useful in short, 1 or 2 sentence descriptions, and then features will 
fit more into slightly longer clarifications.

Part of my interest comes in this discussion is that we need more than 
just the one or two sentence general description; we also need to 
reorganize/revise the "About" handbook. I'm starting to think that what 
might work is a two to three sentence definition that hits all audiences 
generally, followed by a paragraph or two for each audience. Something like:

Drupal is . . . . (a couple of sentences)

For users, Drupal . . . (paragraph)

For site administrators (paragraph)

For web designers (paragraph)

For developers (paragraph)