[sword-devel] Websites (was: Video tutorials)
patrick at zakweb.de
Tue Apr 3 14:44:42 MST 2012
the following are mostly random thoughts off the top of my head while browsing
the crosswire.org sites for ten minutes.
I think that thinking about the target groups of the different pages can be
The way I understand this, the sword project is effectively a library, thus a
developer tool. So the target audience of /sword are developers. The
introductory text on /sword sort of supports this impression.
The crosswire page tries to show the different projects under the crosswire
umbrella, including the affiliated sword frontends and gobible. So this seems
like an end user page to me. The nice overview of the different applications on
the crosswire main site supports my impression.
I think most problems arise because end users browse /sword. So making this
distinction a lot clearer might be a solution.
A banner in a prominent location: "If you are not a developer go to
crosswire.org" might solve that problem.
Also I would not directly link the "The Sword Project" button to the /sword
site. That makes it hard to understand the relation between the two pages.
Putting a sub page with an introductory text (perhaps the text from the "Home"
tab) will make it clear that there is a separate site that deals specifically
with the sword library.
I think the only link to the wiki (which I think is the part of the website
with the by far most content) is on the FAQ of crosswire.org at the very
bottom. I think putting a link to the wiki on /sword might be a good idea.
Backlinks from /sword to crosswire.org should be prohibited (it's a separate
site if I understood this right). So the FAQ link on /sword should be removed.
Given that /sword is targeted at developers the "Developers" tab should be
removed and the information presented directly on the page.
The "Publishers" tab should go to crosswire.org, since they are no developers
and not interested in a library.
On Tuesday, 3. April 2012 22:31:38 Greg Hellings wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 3:13 PM, David Haslam <dfhmch at googlemail.com> wrote:
> > One thing would improve our website considerably.
> > A more unified "Brand Image" and web-page style.
> My understanding is that the varying site styles were purposeful. That
> way it's easy to differentiate that "SWORD" and "GoBible" are
> different brands. If I go to www.ford.com and www.lincoln.com the two
> are markedly different websites even though they are the same company.
> They are marketed as different brands within the same umbrella
> corporation but they want to maintain a distinct identity.
> I don't think the difference from www.crosswire.org/ to
> www.crosswire.org/sword/ is that big of a deal. I think the biggest
> problem is that the /sword/ site is itself fraught with problems of
> antiquated content, obtuse navigation, and difficulty updating.
> > The stark contrast in going from
> > http://www.crosswire.org/
> > to
> > http://www.crosswire.org/sword/modules/
> > (and related pages)
> > illustrates what I'm referring to.
> > It makes us appear incompetent to the outside world.
> > 12 months ago Peter enlisted a friendly web designer to have a go at
> > improving things.
> > This fell by the wayside, probably because someone thought the changes
> > were too "drastic" and deviated too much from how we began.
> > Even going from
> > http://www.crosswire.org/
> > to
> > http://www.crosswire.org/gobible/
> > with my subsequent redirect to http://www.crosswire.org/gobible/newpage/
> > involves a color change to the horizontal dividers, etc.
> > To a large extent, these core problems arise because we're not a top down
> > organization.
> > We're all volunteers with different areas of expertise and interests.
> > Some have less time than others to thing about these matters, by virtue
> > of having day jobs or being in full time studies.
> > If we were a business, then the CEO or management team would make firm
> > decisions about such matters, and provide or allocate the resources to
> > implement the company policies. I've worked most of my engineering career
> > in a large multinational, so I've observed first hand how these things
> > work out.
> > Again, because many of us are programmers or engineers, few of us have
> > strong experience in marketing, nor possess the skills that go with the
> > job description. Just because all our products are free of charge
> > doesn't mean that we don't need to be active in marketing them.
> > Many of our applications are better in some aspects than other Bible
> > Study software out in the market place, yet getting them recognized is
> > an uphill task. Just one example:
> > Our mobile (smart phone) apps do not require remote access to a streaming
> > text server.
> > They don't even "call home" with usage statistics. This is quite common
> > among other products.
> > So for areas where internet access is patchy or restricted, we have a
> > competitive edge in terms of how our applications operate. Once
> > installed, modules do not need a continuous connection to keep working.
> > We need to build on our strengths. Anyone care to do a SWOT analysis?
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWOT_analysis
> > David
> > --
> > View this message in context:
> > http://sword-dev.350566.n4.nabble.com/Re-sword-support-Video-tutorials-t
> > p4528871p4530049.html Sent from the SWORD Dev mailing list archive at
> > Nabble.com.
> > _______________________________________________
> > sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> > http://www.crosswire.org/mailman/listinfo/sword-devel
> > Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
> sword-devel mailing list: sword-devel at crosswire.org
> Instructions to unsubscribe/change your settings at above page
More information about the sword-devel