MozillaZine

Full Article Attached New Mozilla Website

Tuesday September 11th, 2001

Gervase Markham posted an update on the effort to clean up the mozilla.org website. They will be moving to a Zope based system, and have a test site up and running. One of the features of Zope is the ability to skin the entire site. mozilla.org is looking for folks to help create both the default skins and a set of alternate skins. Click the full article link to find out more about this effort, and how you can participate.


#1 Menu and Document Internationalization

by ryuzi

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 5:10 AM

Reply to this message

Is there the roadmap of mozilla.org Documents i18n ? If there is , i would like to work with it.

As a top of Documents,It is preferable if mozilla.org Home and its menu would be i18ned.

This is a Translated version to Japanese of current version top page of mozilla.org <http://jt.mozilla.gr.jp/index.html> by mozilla-gumi mozilla.org Japanese Translation Project. <http://www.mozilla.gr.jp/jt/>

#2 Re: Menu and Document Internationalization

by fab

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:01 AM

Reply to this message

As far as I know, we haven't yet discussed the internationalization of the website. I wonder if zope allows people who registered on the website to get different pages based on their chosen language.

#13 Re: Menu and Document Internationalization

by Gerv

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:25 PM

Reply to this message

We're not sure about i18n yet; it would be ideal if we could store all the translations on the same site and do content negotiation to serve up the correct one.

Perhaps someone would like to investigate Zope's capabilities in this area, and post the results to n.p.m.documentation.

Gerv

#16 Re*2: Menu and Document Internationalization

by ryuzi

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 1:03 AM

Reply to this message

I think both two method 'content negotiation' and 'browse with every language' should be available at the same time on the new site.

ordinary,one who browse the website would read sites at his language,and if he want read with other language,there should be any method to select the language.

If there is no translation version of the page, it would be good to display 'translate me and post it!' message. The page might be translate by someone who could. (I assume original site would be written by English)

#3 That site better just be made of placeholders...

by BryanH <BryanZx@excite.com>

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:04 AM

Reply to this message

After taking one look at the test site for the new mozilla.org, I hope they realize that the skin is wretched, and that the classic mozilla picture at the top of the current website is the one to use.

#5 Re: That site better just be made of placeholders.

by tny

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:35 AM

Reply to this message

Ok, I guess I just don't get it : why should a reader want to be able to skin a website?

I've always found the Mozilla.org website to be clear and relatively easy on the eyes. I can understand wanting to go to Zope for the content management, but I don't see why you need to change the site's visual design.

#8 Re: Re: That site better just be made of placehold

by joschi

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 11:17 AM

Reply to this message

Because it is fun and cool and many people like it. That is all it needs to be.

#15 Re: Re: That site better just be made of placehold

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:27 PM

Reply to this message

You don't "need too change the site's visual design" We could probably carry over the existing design. We could make that the default and let the user choose other styles depending on need (printing) or taste (rainbow colors).

--Asa

#11 Re: That site better just be made of placeholders.

by Gerv

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:21 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, it is made of placeholders. In fact, it's not really a site yet - just a testing ground. I didn't expect it to get this much publicity.

Gerv

#4 skins are very important, even children knows that

by billi_kid

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:31 AM

Reply to this message

huh

#6 The current site is fine

by jensend <jensend@iname.com>

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 7:00 AM

Reply to this message

I think that while a new page might be easier to manage, now is probably not the time to switch- Moz needs to save the developer effort for the lizard. Outside webmaster help is great, and I might be able to provide some, but I would prefer that those well acquainted with the workings of the beast (XPCOM etc) continue to code there instead on a new website.

#7 Re: The current site is fine

by jensend <jensend@iname.com>

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 7:02 AM

Reply to this message

instead OF on a new website. Doh.

#9 Zope?

by jedbro

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 4:10 PM

Reply to this message

Does anyone know why they want to go with Zope? What befinits does that platform have??

Cheers

--Jed

#20 Re: Zope?

by tny

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 7:03 AM

Reply to this message

As already said, low barrier to entry for development, version control, open source technology. I knew nothing about it until this story was posted, but looked into the Zope website and was impressed enough that I'm thinking of recommending it to a client, if I can get the bandwidth hogging design they've insisted upon to work with it.

[Why do people insist on big four corner gradients?]

#12 Re: The current site is fine

by Gerv

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:23 PM

Reply to this message

So when will people have plenty of time for this? ;-) People who are unable to contribute to the code may well be able to help with the website.

In addition, sorting out the website to lower the barrier to entry for contribution is a long-term investment in Mozilla; at the moment, the website sucks because it's so hard to change and fix.

We'd love you to help - head over to netscape.public.mozilla.documentation. :-)

Gerv

#27 Re: Re: The current site is fine

by jelwell

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 3:59 PM

Reply to this message

Anyone that can contribute to a website should be able to write xul and/or javascript which would could be used to help mozilla.

And anyone that can create a skin for the mozilla home page should be able to write a skin for Mozilla, which would help mozilla much more than a skinned homepage.

Joseph Elwell.

#31 Re: Re: Re: The current site is fine

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:00 AM

Reply to this message

I've learned that 'can do' and 'want to do' are sometimes two very differnt things. Mozilla UI hacking has a fairly low barrier to entry and I'm glad for that because it has attracted lots of great people but not everyone wants to hack a small piece of the Browser UI

There are people right now working on making Bugzilla a better tool who aren't interested in working on the Browser even though they probably have the skills. I am thankful for thier efforts and haven't once said "you should be working on the Browser and not Bugzilla".

There are lots of people that are not at all interested in diving into mozilla code and mozilla review and cvs access policy but might be willing to help out with the website. I am happy to have their contributions and hope that more people will chip in (including engineers) to make docs and the organization and presentation of docs better.

--Asa

#35 Re: Re: Re: The current site is fine

by jelwell

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:27 AM

Reply to this message

I'm thankful for Bugzilla work myself. It's the best bug tracking system I've ever used or seen.

Helping out with the website, in paticular documentation would be great. But a call for mozilla.org skins? You're comparing apples with oranges.

Also, asking for help that is "open only to people who have been working on or around Mozilla " sounds like your already asking for people to divert their time away from other mozilla projects.

Joseph Elwell.

#37 Re: Re: Re: Re: The current site is fine

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:58 AM

Reply to this message

I'm not asking for anything. I think that was Gerv :) I hope that people will put some time and energy into making docs better. Some of this can only be done by people familiar with the code. Some can be done by others. We need this and I applaud Gerv for his efforts to get some movement on that front.

As far as skinning the site goes, a site needs a style sheet. The Zope CMF has functionality for switching between a few styles (and coincidentally Mozilla has UI for switching style sheets and I think this could be done at the current site with some minor changes). I think that a few different user selectable site styles would be a good thing. I like a very clean and printable style and I think other developers and testers do too. I also realize that if we're going to attract new developers and specifically new companies that pay developers that it would probably help to have a pretty slick site that the corporate types can feel comfortable reading (possibly the default style). I might also like to see a style that shows off some of mozilla's amazing css support and that wouldn't necessarily degrade well in other/older browsers. So users of 4.x browsers shouldn't have to suffer and won't if they can pick a style that works well in that browser. There are lots of great reasons for using different styles for the site, some practical and some purely esthetic. If it was just esthetics I wouldn't object but I might not encourage folks to help out. It's more than that though. It's the reasons I listed above plus one other I forgot to mention. Our site is so 'tired' and 'late 90s' looking. I think that a skin that gave me the choice between the look i see at the current site <http://www.mozilla.org/> (or something a little fresher but equally 'hacker' targeted) and msdn <http://msdn.microsoft.com/default.asp> would be a great thing.

--Asa

#42 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The current site is fine

by jelwell

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:58 PM

Reply to this message

100% is how much I agree with your hope that people will put some time and energy into making the docs better. As this article didn't mention documentation, I'm going to refrain from applauding Gerv for making movement in that front.

The quote "Our site is so 'tired' and 'late 90s' looking." reminds me of the episode of South Park I saw last night where they found a frozen man from the 'late post jurassic period' 1996. They keep him detained, for his own safety because things are soo different from 1996 that he would go crazy if let loose - which he does, when he escapes.

Joseph Elwell.

#44 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The current site is fine

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday September 13th, 2001 9:00 PM

Reply to this message

The primary reason for investigating solutions other than CVS was to lower the barrier to entry for documentation folks. As it stands if I want to create and maintain docs on the mozilla.org website I have to learn how to use developer tools like CVS and get my environment set up just right and whatnot. I think this is a major barrier to entry for some potential documentation contributors. Making this better is movement on the documentation front.

--Asa

#17 Re: The current site is fine

by fab

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 1:49 AM

Reply to this message

The current website has been criticized for its horrible UI and the impossibility for a newcomer to find what he wants. It is also barely manage-able, and CVS places the entry barrier very high. With Zope anyone with a net connection will be able to make changes. And it provides lots more facilities, that are described in detail in the zope book. <http://www.zope.org/Documentation>

#10 Standards compliant HTML

by dave532

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 5:02 PM

Reply to this message

I think one of the most important things of any redesign is to make sure the HTML is standards compliant according to the HTML validator.

Start they way you mean to go on.

#14 Re: Standards compliant HTML

by Gerv

Tuesday September 11th, 2001 6:25 PM

Reply to this message

We hope to use standards-compliant HTML, and we have a couple or three people who are going to work to make that happen.

Gerv

#18 table based layout

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 2:17 AM

Reply to this message

Do we really need to use table based layout? The current nested table layout is really ugly.

#19 Re: table based layout

by fab

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 5:04 AM

Reply to this message

We hope not to have to do that, but we have to support older browsers, so we probably won't have a choice.

#21 Re: Re: table based layout

by sacolcor

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 8:52 AM

Reply to this message

Why do we need to support older browsers? This is an advocacy site for a /new/ browser, that's had very usable versions for a long time. I would say to support Moz/NS6+ (of course), IE5+, whatever the latest Opera is, and perhaps Konqeror. Don't all of those support the CSS needed to get rid of the table-based layout? If someone is still using NS4.x, it's high time for them to upgrade, and I think this site should encourage them to do so.

#22 Correction

by sacolcor

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 8:56 AM

Reply to this message

I was somehow thinking of mozillazine, not mozilla.org. Even so, my opinion is the same. At most, NS4.x users should be redirected to a very bare, stripped down site that just lets them download Moz if they want (and maybe shows screenshots of what it will look like once they do). Mozilla.org is a technology distribution site, after all...not a commercial browser center.

#24 Re: Re: Re: table based layout

by Gerv

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 9:59 AM

Reply to this message

> Why do we need to support older browsers?

Because people still use them in significant numbers. This is not the WaSP.

One of the advantages of skins is that we will be able to have a skin which really shows off Mozilla, which people can switch to. Sign up to help today! ;-)

Gerv

#25 Re: Re: table based layout

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 10:21 AM

Reply to this message

maybe, but it still doesn't excuse the site from using so many nested tables. I would think that if tables are to be used there should only be one (that is used for formatting the page). The site should not need to look identical in all browsers (it will not look identical in many browsers even with tables), it just needs to be presentable.

#23 Shrugged....

by Wiggins <wiggins@danconia.org>

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 9:28 AM

Reply to this message

"We may end up with something which takes the best bits of different people's designs."

Ayn Rand is rolling over in her grave.

#26 Timeline?

by kb7iuj <ajvincent@hotmail.com>

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 10:51 AM

Reply to this message

Well, I'm very interested, but skins are not my specialty. Maybe if you need some JavaScript work done...

What's the timeline we're looking at here, though? I'm tied up for a month, I think.

#28 Mozilla Skins more important than Mozilla.org skin

by jelwell

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 4:05 PM

Reply to this message

People working on mozilla.org skins would be better suited working on Mozilla skins!

The more skins Mozilla has, the more people might use Mozilla. The more skins Mozilla.org has, the more people might what?

Anyone that can help out on a website should be able to write xul, css, and/or javascript and therefore be able to assist further development of Mozilla.

Anyone that can write a skin for Mozilla.org should be able to write a skin for Mozilla.

Do we want people using our product, or using our website? Is Mozilla turning into Netscape II? Netscape (the browser) is an engine to drive people to Netscape.com. Is Mozilla just a engine to drive people to Mozilla.org? Joseph Elwell.

#38 Re: Mozilla Skins more important than Mozilla.org

by fab

Thursday September 13th, 2001 2:01 AM

Reply to this message

>Anyone that can help out on a website should be able to write xul, css, >and/or javascript and therefore be able to assist further development of >Mozilla. Different tasks, different people.

>Do we want people using our product, or using our website? The website should and will be an incentive to use Mozilla and to get involved in its development. I get involved in the new website because I write the DOM documentation. As simple as that. No my time would not be better spent coding. This is a long-term investment.

And at least, the mozilla.org skins will not be outdated after two days ;-)

-Fabian.

#40 Mozilla Skins not more important

by Gerv

Thursday September 13th, 2001 11:34 AM

Reply to this message

Do we need more Mozilla skins? Two seems plenty to me for testing purposes, which is what mozilla.org is all about.

On the other hand, the lack of useful info and documentation on the website is a discouragement for potential distributors, embedders and new contributors to Mozilla. Long term investment.

Gerv

#41 Re: Mozilla Skins not more important

by jelwell

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:36 PM

Reply to this message

If your going to bother replying to my criticism about asking for Mozilla.org skinners, at least stay on topic.

What does creating Mozilla.org skins and having documentation and useful information have to do with eachother?

As I mentioned in my reply to Asa, this was a call for Mozilla.org skinners, not Mozilla.org documentors nor Mozilla.org general web help.

Joseph Elwell.

#43 Re: Re: Mozilla Skins not more important

by Gerv

Thursday September 13th, 2001 6:43 PM

Reply to this message

This is but one small part of the road to having a decent website. Or would you prefer I threw together the look of our primary interface with new people in five minutes? I could use mozillaquest.com's design ideas...

Gerv

#45 Re: Re: Re: Mozilla Skins not more important

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Friday September 14th, 2001 4:30 AM

Reply to this message

The important thing here, I think, is the content.

As a goal of its own, skins are pretty much a waste of time. But if you think that the call for skin coders will ALSO generate better documentation and other content, then it is indeed a good thing to be calling for. So long as it's made apparent that the skinning itself is not the desired end product.

Jason.

#29 How actually is the asshole Mike Angelo?

by ezh <ezh@menelon.ee>

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 8:27 PM

Reply to this message

How is he? A MS worker or what?

"Mozilla Milestone 0.9.4 should have been released Friday, 7 September 2001, but it was not. The suspected reasons -- bugs, poor program management, and inappropriate concessions to AOL and its Netscape Division."

What an idiot! If mozilla rulers decided a release sometimes in September so it has to contain fixes for the features we want in it! Why the mtfcker can realize it???

I only visit the site to view the bug count for milestones, but I have to read the idiotic articles... :((((

#30 Have MozillaQuest yanked

by sremick

Wednesday September 12th, 2001 9:22 PM

Reply to this message

Considering that MozillaQuest's only purpose in life now seems to be to slander the Mozilla project and Netscape 6.x, perhaps it is time that AOL/Mozilla threw around its weight a bit, and requested that MozillaQuest loose the right to the domain name as it contains their trademark.

Nothing can stop him from uttering the BS from another website name, but he should loose the right to market himself as some internal/legit voice of the project by using "Mozilla" in the domain name or title of his "publication".

Just a thought.

#39 don't know if this works

by niner

Thursday September 13th, 2001 6:34 AM

Reply to this message

Maybe Mike would then just put up a page like "we're posting the truth that Aol/Netscape don't want you to know"

Hm....is he reading this forum? Don't want to give him bad ideas...

#46 nothing to fear

by shin

Friday September 14th, 2001 11:30 AM

Reply to this message

I don't see what kind of 'truth' he could be posting. If he wants to post fantasies about imagined AOL/Netscape 'truths', then maybe a diffamation lawsuit would do ?

#32 Re: How actually is the asshole Mike Angelo?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:10 AM

Reply to this message

You don't have to go to his site to get counts of bugs targeted against a particular Milestone. 3 good reasons not to:

1. his counts are wrong. 2. his counts aren't updated often enough 3. you can bookmark this page and get the counts live and up to the minute along with the actual list of bugs from the links below.

0.9.4 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.4>

0.9.5 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.5>

0.9.6 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.6>

0.9.7 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.7>

--Asa (I hope I did those links correctly. if not I'll redo this post.)

#33 Re: How actually is the asshole Mike Angelo?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:11 AM

Reply to this message

You don't have to go to his site to get counts of bugs targeted against a particular Milestone. 3 good reasons not to:

1. his counts are wrong. 2. his counts aren't updated often enough 3. you can bookmark this page and get the counts live and up to the minute along with the actual list of bugs from the links below.

0.9.4 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.4>

0.9.5 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.5>

0.9.6 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.6>

0.9.7 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…et_milestone=mozilla0.9.7>

--Asa (I hope I did those links correctly. if not I'll redo this post.)

#34 sorry for the double post. (more info here too)

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:20 AM

Reply to this message

The links are just Bugzilla queries. You can bookmark the results of the queries and those bookmarks will repeat the query and give you up to the minute buglists with counts (noted at the top and bottom of the buglist).

You can do your own queries too by visiting <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/query.cgi> and selecting/entering some search parameters.

One additional note. While we generally have between 1000 and 1500 bugs targeted against the next Milestone and we generally fix between 1200 and 1600 bugs every Milestone (about 5 weeks apart) not all bugs fixed in a Milestone were actually targeted against that Milestone. It is also the case that not all bugs targeted at a Milestone are fixed in that Milestone. So relying on these counts for anything more than an idea of which bugs are desired for each Milestone is probably not a good idea. Target Milestone is not a commitment to fix in that particular cycle. It is more an indication of work that a developer is working on or would like to be working on for that particular 5 weeks. I think of it as "don't expect a fix for this bug any sooner than Milestone #".

Hope this helps some.

--Asa

#36 Thank you.

by joschi

Thursday September 13th, 2001 12:48 AM

Reply to this message

I really appriciate your efforts to try to cut through all the bullsh*t and noise that get spouted around here. Keep it up!