[sword-devel] CrossWire website up and running

[Peter von Kaehne]

Troy A. Griffitts wrote:
> Peter,
> 
> Thank you again for owning this.  Just a few quick comments.
> 
> We have a google site search on the sword page which is really useful 
> for searching the mailing list archives (among other things on the 
> site).  Maybe we could grab it from there.

I noticed this. i will think of how to incorporate it.

> My preference is that the Wiki, as a concept, doesn't have a direct 
> prominent link.  My thoughts are that Wiki technology might be used for 
> any number of things at CrossWire, and we should link to wiki pages or 
> static pages bases on what the page contains regarless of whether it is 
> wiki or static or jsp or whatever.  

I really struggle with this. Our site looked like a mess due to 4 or 5
different designs in between which you would get thrown about. Any top
link could get you anywhere. Apart from the browser back button you
often had no way of getting back to where you came from. This was simply
not right. I am moving development stuff which will change frequently or
will benefit from lots of improved detail into the Wiki. I will keep the
 Sword site tidy and static, with the stuff we need there to showcase
it, but little else. The rest for developers should be in the wiki and
there is little need to artificially integrate the two. People know how
to use wikis and are nwoadays actively looking for them when they want
to join or use in a deeper way projects.

> just that we should use community editing as a technology 
> throughout our site where appropriate, otherwise the top wiki page 
> becomes logically a duplicate of what we're trying to do on the main 
> crosswire page, or for a main developers' page or some other logical 
> site section.  Does that make sense?

At the moment the pages are static and apart from doling out rights
there is little way of making them community editable. So we should grab
this as a challenge and simply divide carefully what goes where.


> Can we get the PalmBible+ blurb back?

I salvaged it. Just not re-integrated. What about the unibible? I have
it too.

> If we have a Java section, I'm not sure all the java programs should 
> also go into all the other groups, as well.  I'm not sure what I think 
> is best.  But if the Java apps do go under all the other groups, they 
> should not have higher visibility than apps directly written for the 
> platform-- like MacSword.

Once GS, BPBible and BT are on Linux, MacOs and Windows, they will also
go into all kinds of sections. So that is not a Java thing. If you port
BibleCS onto Linux, I will make space for it there ;-) (BTW I read on an
old mailing list that it could run on some PDAs. Is this true?

Essentially as long as we have a static choice of pages per operating
system or whatever we will have doubling up or we will restrict people's
choices without good reason. This is not about increased exposure, but
about appropriate choices. If I am a windows user I should not need to
think -"oh there is also Java!" - everything should be in one place.

I thought about making this whole thing dynamic with the user chosing
the OS, mother tongue and whatever else, and then the page throwing back
the 1 to 15 suitable applications, but this became just a nightmare.

let us leave it as it is right now, seriously. Or create that chooser.

> In general, I'm having an aesthetic problem with no indenting of 
> subsections.  Like all the places we have a color bar like
> 
> =Volutneer Opportunities==================
> 
> It seems the text under these should be slightly indented as they were 
> on the old site.  Just my preference.

Interesting. On the continent we never indented, but had a vertical
space. Here in the UK they gave up on indentation 20 years ago acc my
wife. So it is not only a taste matter but a localisation issue.

> "History and Aims"?  I think "About" is shorter and usually expected on 
> a website.

This was a subtle hint at you to create some historical synopsis. CW is
10+ years old - that is huge in internet terms - so enlighten all of us
and add some paragraph(s) on the history. Afterwards we can call it as
you like.

> Simply "Read the Bible" as a link is probably better for the people we 
> want to use it regularly.  I realize the "... online in our we based 
> study tool" advertises that SWORDWeb is another of our tools which can 
> be used on your own site, but I think we need to be obvious about this 
> to our tools audience in a better way.

Happy with that. will change.

> I'm excited about all this work!  I can't begin to express how 
> appreciative I am about all the many hours you've devoted to improving 
> our site!

You are welcome.

God bless you all

Peter