In my initial post, I talked about the wall of text. I described some of the symptoms of the wall of text, and proclaimed that kde.org is terrible. I listed some of the basics of cleaning up text, and gathered some information about the “why” of kde.org.
Unfortunately, KDE.org is representative of a very large and vibrant community, and although formatting and eyecandy insertions will come in good time, we have to first understand the site’s structure to make informed decisions before tidying up small details. KDE.org’s wall of text problem is not simply due to a few bad aesthetic choices, but instead a side-effect of a more fundamental problem in KDE-www’s structure.
When I defined the wall of text issue, I described the problem being boiling to the essence of what you’re trying to communicate to the audience, and how to present it. Thus let’s look at what we are trying to communicate to the KDE audience – of which there are essentially two parties:
The uninitiated potential KDE user
The new user is interested in the single question of “What is KDE?“. They will want to understand that KDE is a community, and that its product is KDE SC – of which is a multidimensional beast full of wonders both for end-users and developers. When this has been answered, we want to tell them “Why is KDE right for me?“, and finally when convinced, “How do I start?“.
New users have a very specific workflow, and so we should recognise this, tailor it to them, and remove any potential “sidetracking” factoids.
The existing KDE user
The existing KDE user knows what KDE is and is currently using it, but most importantly, the existing user IS KDE. The rebranding effort was not about changing KDE to KDE SC, but instead about separating product from people. Technically, open-source is simply a business model, but in reality, open-source is a philosophy constructed by people. KDE’s challenge is how to turn one of open-source’s most intangible qualities into an axiom for all users.
So let’s talk a bit about KDE instead of KDE: SC. It has a “magazine” of sorts, the Dot, which gives “official” news on the ongoing events in KDE. It has an active blogosphere by PlanetKDE, which is populated basically by the people behind KDE: SC, which report upcoming features, discussions about KDE-related topics, ongoing physical events, and ongoing virtual events. It has a micro-blogosphere, by buzz.kde, which highlights recent Flickr and Picasa activity, YouTube videos, Tweets, and Dents. KDE’s community also has the Forums, which acts both as discussions, support and brainstorm. There is a multitude of Wikis: Userbase, the by and for users, Techbase, the by and for developers, and Community, used to organise community activities. There is KDE e.V, which does awesome stuff which isn’t publicised enough, and a variety of groups in social networks such as Facebook and Linux.com. Freenode’s network has a collection of IRC channels where KDE enthusiasts hang out. There is a variety of regional communities which all hold their own KDE specific stuff, and an entire of network of community-contributed KDE resources through the OpenDesktop API, and various other KDE connections through the SocialDesktop.
For your convenience, I’ve bolded what is KDE in the above paragraph. KDE-www, being representative of KDE, must stress that this is what KDE is – firstly by presenting in a digestable form the amazing influx of activity from all of those sources, and secondly by making it easy for any KDE user, old or new, to find out where they belong, and how they can add to the community. If you look at KDE-www from this perspective, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that KDE.org is terrible.
But where do we start?
Given such a complex problem, let’s start by mapping out the ideal routes for each user. Here’s the proposal:
When looking at the chart above, notice how we clearly separate KDE from KDE:SC. I would like to highlight that the two final goals for existing users are not mutually exclusive. You can both contribute to KDE:SC but at the same time contribute to KDE – as long as you communicate your activity.
Now that we have identified the ideal paths for our target audiences, we can start making informed decisions about restructuring KDE.org. But before I get to that in part 2, feel free to add your opinion.
P.S. There is some wrong terminology used when it comes to KDE:SC, it should be referred to as KDE Software, as SC is more of a technical term used to describe a specific subset of packages in KDE Software.