DLa News
News from Sunday, August 31, 2003 @ 11:39 AM
Last meeting minutes regarding website:
- The website needs to be modernized, refined, updated, and trimmed down.
- Through email discussion we will begin analysis and reconstruction.
- The new site will be constructed behind the scenes and replace current configuration when complete – at which point, the old site will be either be dismantled, or transfered to another folder as a linkable archive (with recommendation of removing previous PDFs).
Phase One: Analysis of old website structure (NOT aesthetics).
Thane comments regarding old website structure:
- Gene and Ron’s pages need to disappear. I recommend a unified gallery page (on the main page – just one or two clickable thumbnails each) and a link to a more complete gallery if Dlartist so desires. The galleries/art are the substance of the site.
- The ‘kollectiv’ and ‘pdf archiv’ tabs are unnecessary. I would like to keep a ‘history’ or ‘about’ page, but the archiving of old issues online is a clumsy, boring presentation of our art. If anybody wants to keep old issues online, please think of something more artful & interesting in terms of presentation. — my recommendation would be to discontinue the online issue archiving, replaced by enhanced ‘zine features’ page and supplemented by personal galleries.
- contact info is outdated. we should delete the ‘submit’ portion also. (it isnt a feature that is used, and also i would rather that people submitting knew one of us already. keep it personal.)
- artboard link should remain. archived artboard should go.
Basically, all online archiving should stop. completely! if we keep pack-ratting all that crap online, the site will become a maze of confused links and explanations and take up a ton of space. At most – we should burn the current website onto CD once a year, or quarterly?, and delete old content. Example: 3 months of new website stuff is online (and we have been updating every month (for example..)) so with the next update, we burn a CD, delete the two oldest months of stuff.
I will have more to say, but we should keep the email discussion moving back and forth.
Login to post a comment
88teeth
[ Edited on: 08/31/03 ] | [ 3 ]
Leave a Comment »
[
FullScreen |
LetterBox ]
3 comments
Comment by Perishable
[ Sunday, August 31, 2003 ]
Most Honorable One,
Gene’s and Ron’s pages have disappeared — if you still see them on your machine, then you should ‘refreshen’ things up a bit… the links pertaining to their now-removed sites need removed/fixed, though.
other than that, the old website doesn’t need any more werk (structurally) — we should MOVE ON to the new site, instead of wasting time redesigning galleries (or unified galleries) for the old site, we should be werking on them for the NEW site… or is that what you meant in the first place?
…And your email continues on within the context of you discussing the OLD site… the kollektiv and archive tabs are unnecessary? this seems like a long, convoluted way of designing/building a NEW site..(?) wouldnt it be easier to just start with what we want, plan out the pages, and go from there…? I guess I am confused? Huh?
Seriously, though, if you are going to be tweaking the OLD site (instead of werking on a new one), I do not want to remove ANY of the things you were mentioning — save them changes for the NEW site! DAMN! (The ‘submit’ should be changed to ‘donations’ again, though…) but i disagree with changing much more than aesthetic details, given that this is the OLD site, and we should be spending our time moving forward… otherwise, let’s forget the NEW site and just reVamp the old instead…
But, I do agree with you about no more online archiving — we should keep what we have — but for the new site, we should not have any need for such tedium.. yeah and the CD thing should be for the NEW site only…
just my opinion(s) — to help keep it moving back and forth…
jeth
Comment by 88Teeth
[ Sunday, August 31, 2003 ]
uh .. yeh.
no. no?
the reason i stated it as an issue of ‘structure’ for discussion, was to determine what (if anything) was valuable enough to keep in mind when developing the NEW site. that is the only relevance the old site has. i thot it would be a good starting point to get eveybody thnkng, in an attempt to learn from our success’s/failures.
so just to set things straight – i am not wasting ANY more time on the old site. i fixed the dropdowns already. other than deleting the PDFs off the old site when we ‘archive’ it, i would not waste any more time working on it. if there is anything of value for you in the old site in terms of layout/structure spill it out.
Comment by Perishable
[ Sunday, August 31, 2003 ]
all right. i think that we should not have any more submenus than is absolutely necessary — that is, everything should be accessible from one (index) page … this will cut down on DLa convolutionz and hopefully streamline our presentation…
just to start it fresh