> On 12 Jan 2018, at 13:11, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 12/01/18 13:07, Eliot Lear wrote: >> And I would vote that we continue to improve the new site, bugs and all, >> and just learn as we go. This should not be a one-time effort but a >> process. > > I agree with Eliot. And with the reasons for changing that Andrew > and Brian listed. There's stuff to fix, but I'm happy it'll get > fixed (or be complained about 'till fixed:-). Indeed. As much as I appreciate why some are sat like Canute trying to push back the inevitable "commercialisation" tide washing over the IETF web site, the most pragmatic approach now must be to improve what we have. The frustrating thing, as some have pointed out, is that a number of good constructive suggestions appear to have been ignored, so it's not clear what's still be to fixed/changed, and what whoever is in charge of the process (who is that?) thinks is either OK or still broken. As Eliot suggests, getting a transparent process in place for continuous improvement would be great. At the moment, it just seems to be "email webmaster@xxxxxxxx". A more prominent button/link from which to suggest site improvements would be useful, and an open ticket view perhaps behind it for better transparency, so you can see what suggestions have already been made and acted on or discarded (and the reason for it). The two new pages I'd be mostly using, and that I'd like to see improved are: - https://www.ietf.org/links/ - remove the unnecessary header text (this has been suggested by many people), so you can more readily see all the info on one screen. - https://www.ietf.org/how/meetings/101/ - again, a screenful of pointless banner before you find the useful links. Even the "Key details" text is superfluous. And default the expandable subsections to open, we shouldn't have to click on them. Tim