I second Brian's comments.
www6.ietf.org is far more useful and functional than www.ietf.org.
("were a highlight the Internet Research Task Force (IRTF)"
- the marketing doesn't extend to subediting for grammar. Sigh.)
Lloyd Wood lloyd.wood@xxxxxxxxxxx http://about.me/lloydwood
________________________________
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@xxxxxxxx>
Cc: "ietf@xxxxxxxx" <ietf@xxxxxxxx>; Keith Moore <moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, 26 May 2019, 7:59
Subject: Re: Call for Community Input: Web Analytics on www.ietf.org
Hi Roman,
On 25-May-19 15:11, Roman Danyliw wrote:
.....
> The expected utility of the usage data is to have an empirical basis for improving the site. I'm not sure how we improve the web site without a feedback loop (active where comments on it are made explicitly and passively by watching usage).
Isn't the first question whether the site is fit for purpose? I can certainly see that analytics will help optimise details, but are we at that point yet?
My understanding when the improvement project was started was that the main issues were the highly manual maintenance cost of the old site, and ease of use for newcomers. What we got wasn't an improved version of a site fit for geeks, but something that looks like lots of other marketing-oriented sites. I feel sad when I look back at how good www6.ietf.org still seems today.
Brian
