Community
Participate
Working Groups
From bug 159588 comment 103: Another quick point: Eclipse is an open development platform Eclipse is an an open source community... Should the site not say "Eclipse.org is an open source community...", while Eclipse is a development platform. (And yes I realize how big this can of worms may be and I am not looking for a philosophical discussion of "What Eclipse is to You", but defining Eclipse two different ways on our main page may cause confusion).
I am actually okay with both versions. We do talk about eclipse being an open soruce community and an open development platform. It really is both.
Oh, okay. I thought this was an oversight. Feel free to close this as worksforme.
Ian, You are probably the best person to comment on this since you do the marketing for eclipse, but I know some students found this confusing the first time they hit the Eclipse site. One student told me, "I was asked to try Eclipse, but Eclipse doesn't seem like anything I can try". This was before the new site was up, so maybe we are in better shape. I asked a number of people "What Eclipse Is", and I got a variety of answers (including an IDE, an implementation of OSGi, a platform for everything and nothing in particular), but no one said a "community". As Denis mentioned, I just thought this was an oversight, so by all means close the bug.
When one first reaches the Eclipse site, then Eclipse is an IDE, and it can be so for the rest of one's life: this conveys somehow a success of the product, the fact that one can use it for a lifetime without needing to be aware of the underpinnings. Some (Java) developers might want to express themselves, interact with the designers and developers of the products, help, give feedback, etc. These developers can see Eclipse as a community, but after, and only after, having use the IDE. For the first kind of developer, having to sort thru the community-related links of the pages is sort of a chore, and this should be avoided by separating the tracks as much as possible. Another kind of user for the web site is the returning user. Why one that comes 100 times has to see 100 times that "Eclipse - an open development platform" or "Eclipse is used for ...?" Or see a thumbnail screenshot, probably the same one over and over ... and for Windows! Sorry to say, the kind of design where the "webmaster" struggles for to set all it in the start page is much less professional than that of sites where the information is organized the IA way, see for example the "Boxes and Arrows" web site (not their site but what they say about how it has to be done.) Anyway, in their site they solve the institutional issuewith a simple "about" link that takes almost no real estate but it's there for those who WANT to dig into it. As an example, the "about" track in Eclipse is for to be taken a few times, and can have as many pages as needed. After the introductory issues, there can be one page for each projecy, one for each commiter, ... sponsor, etc. These are mainly static pages, written by those who are involved, i.e. each commiter writes her own bio. I realize that I'm calling for a deep overhaul of the site, please realize that Eclipse deserves it. Not a reasonable web site as it is now, but a site as good as the product is: excellent. Maybe this is slightly OT in this bug. I said the same in bug 159588 just to raise the issue but then the goal was to release the new look ASAP, I'm talking here about a many moon trip. Now that the dust is settling, but before it finishes to do so. -- Juan Lanus
Juan, Thanks for your feedback. I think the home page does need a short explanation of what Eclipse is, and although Eclipse is quite broad, I think the current paragraph offers a good bird's-eye-view of Eclipse without being overly verbose. > Maybe this is slightly OT in this bug. I said the same in bug 159588 just to > raise the issue but then the goal was to release the new look ASAP, I'm talking > here about a many moon trip. You are free to open a new bug against our homepage - one dedicated to the page's structure, layout and content issues you have. If you provide a JPG of what you imagine is the best homepage, that would likely help us understand. I'm closing this bug as worksforme, as it pertains to the opening paragraph.
Moving to Community/Website
