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