On Mon, 5 Dec 2005, seth vidal wrote: > > Wikis don't have a way to build a hierarchy of pages, move branches > > around, etc. I realize that MoinMoin does have categories, but I don't > > know that they're hierarchical, and AFAIK there's no way to turn them into > > a nice little sidebar with an expandable tree. These basic navigation > > things may sound stupid, but they're important to web site usability. > > You mean like: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CategoryExtras > > and > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CategoryCategory > > and > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CategoryDesktop > > like that? Actually, Seth, I'd say that your examples conclusively demonstate Elliot's point. Those pages are scarcely more useful than running a search through the wiki. And since they're not on a sidebar, a user has *no way* of figuring out where they are without visiting one of these pages. Information architecture is hard -- and more information == more hard. That's one of the reasons I'm kinda skeptical of the whole "CMS" idea in the first place, tbh. For dynamic content, use the wiki. For static content -- which includes high-level content, a decent current map of the dynamic content, and very little else -- I'm in favor of plain ol' web pages, with a handful of people who are tasked with auditing the content every few months on a set schedule. The surface content on Ubuntu's site is certainly well-maintained -- but go a couple of layers deep, and it's the same kind of chaos we face, Drupal or no Drupal. My $0.02. I'm just trying to make something out of what we've got now. --g _____________________ ____________________________________________ Greg DeKoenigsberg ] [ the future masters of technology will have Community Relations ] [ to be lighthearted and intelligent. the Red Hat ] [ machine easily masters the grim and the ] [ dumb. --mcluhan
