Hi, On 2014-3-22, at 19:36, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote: > perhaps instead of repeated sarcasm and put-downs, you could explain > technically what it is you want in the user interface of the ietf web > site and the features needed to support it. that way, folk actually > trying to wade through the redesign decision actually have something > to consider. fair point. In terms of look & feel: I'd like the main web site (and the datatracker, but that's not covered by he SOW obviously) to have a clean, modern look and feel, be fully usable by clients with small screens, and follow ARIA accessibility standards. In terms of management: Whatever the secretariat prefers. Whether the backend is some CMS, or a static page generator, or something else. It would be nice if the backend was future-proof, such that the content could be easily extracted when we do this revamp exercise the next time (5-10 years out, if web technologies keep evolving at their current pace). It would be nice if we could leverage CDNs more aggressively than at the moment (but that's actually more important for the datatracker responsiveness, i.e., not this SOW). In terms of technology used: I don't actually care much *how* this is implemented, both in terms of the backend and in terms of the content delivered. I'd prefer if we'd follow modern web standards (HTML5 with some modern framework such as bootstrap, jquery-mobile, etc.), mostly so there is a deep enough pool of developers that we can hire from. > fwiw, i have seen usable and featurful web sites that are done with > pretty simple technology and work in very sparse user environments. Yep. This isn't rocket science. (But it is a bikeshed.) We could simply save ourselves a lot of cycles and adopt whatever one of our friendly peer organizations (ISOC< W3C, etc.) are using... Lars
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail