[theforum] movement for redesign

[William Anderson]

Jeff Howden wrote:
> [snip]
>
> so, rather than talking about details so much, can we please continue
> with the conversation about high-level requirements and go from there?
>
> without a thoroughly fleshed out plan of attack, we WILL fail MISERABLY.

I agree about getting mired in the details, I spoke about this earlier today
re: colour schemes, but the structure *does* need discussed at this early
stage.  I'm of the opinion that the current structure is unclear and
disjointed.  Have the domains alias if need be so that evolt.org =
www.evolt.org = work.evolt.org if it will sate the need to kowtow to
pagerank so much, but at this stage, this discussion *has* to take place,
perhaps not with the granularity of specific domain names, but at the very
least the structure behind that.

By saying "let's have work, test, play and here's what goes underneath" is
*core* to every single scrap of work downstream from that design choice.  I
was of the understanding that migrating to XHTML/CSS2, improving IA,
building SSO were all given high level requirements already.  Since they are
known goals, discussing the very structure of what we wish to build is
*crucial*.

-- 
_ __/|   ___  ___ __ _________ "When Microsoft Office is your only hammer,
\`O_o'  / _ \/ -_) // / __/ _ \ pretty much everything begins to look like
=(_ _)=/_//_/\__/\_,_/_/  \___/ a nail. Or a thumb." -- Rob Pegoraro
   U - Ack! Phttpt! Thhbbt!     neuro at well dot com  http://neuro.me.uk/