Add more information to the homepage to explain what io.js is. #50
Conversation
|
The main statement we give on the index page confuses people. I suggest providing a clearer and more aggressive mission statement. <a href="https://github.com/iojs/io.js">io.js</a> replaces <a href="https://nodejs.org">node.js</a>™. It is compatible with <a href="https://www.npmjs.org/">npm</a>. |
|
I agree with you on this and I think that statement should be changed as The statement doesn't need to be elegant and short... it just needs to
|
|
Noting this relates to #46 -- I already commented there I agreed we need to do a better job on the homepage copy. +1 for the general concept here. Would be good to land something like this sooner than later as io.js news spreads over the next few days. |
|
You have to be a little bit careful because v0.10 isn't fully merged yet, see nodejs/node#267 an also the discussion at the TC meeting yesterday. There's some cherry-picking going on and there will be some more, but it's not complete. |
|
I'll land this in a few hours, perhaps around 15:00 UTC. I spammed the IRC room users to provide some feedback. I'll make this merge-friendly at that time (as it currently conflicts) pending any final suggestions. (At the very least I'd like to merge the suggested semver description somewhere on the page at the time.) @rvagg re: v0.10, good point, we can always tweak the wording there. |
|
I'll rebase on top of master to fix the conflicts. |
|
Oh great, thanks @STRML! |
|
Just rebased, good to go. |
|
Thanks @STRML. Still awaiting general copy feedback. FYI I might play with the responsive breakpoints (as it starts to look weird on a small screen with the additional content now in the grey box) and bump the class=small font size up slightly prior to this going live. |
|
Sure sure. IMO it's not worth getting too crazy about, it doesn't need On 1/14/15 2:04 PM, Sean Ouimet wrote:
|
|
Agreed. That's why I put a ticking clock on allowing feedback. Since I've had merge access on the project < 1 hour, I don't want to go crazy with my new "powers" ;) |
|
|
|
I'm fine with updating the FAQ but the top line messaging needs to stay simple, short, and to the point. Maybe we can do some revised version of this under the releases but before the bottom links. |
|
I think the major complaint regarding the homepage has been that it is On 1/14/15 3:08 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
|
|
Some high level discussion on this is happening on #53 which balances out some of the info created here and utilizing FAQ to go in to more detail. |
|
You're giving HN commenters far too much credit. When NodeOS was released nearly every commenter asked "What kernel is this?" or "You're writing a kernel!" and the first text on the project, literally the first thing you would read other than the name of the project said "Linux Kernel." So unless you have a way of addressing this that appeals to people who don't read, don't take HN commenters seriously. |
|
I disagree with that. I've been a Node developer for about 3 years now and I was thoroughly confused by io.js the first few times I heard about it. I was confused by the 1.0.0 release as well until I went on IRC and asked some of the devs about whether or not it was stable and why the version number. I put this PR together because it answered the questions I personally had, not just because people on HN/Reddit were also asking those questions. This PR addresses the major questions I had when I first saw the homepage, which were:
|
It says "Beta stability" quite large in the release block, is that not descriptive enough? Has "beta" basically lost all meaning cause Google :) The "why does the project exist" shouldn't be in the topline messaging. Topline messaging should answer "what can I do with this and what is unique about it?" For now, that is "ES6 and all of NPM." I'm open to better ways of messaging that, but a full description of the history of the project and its governance just isn't interesting to the majority of end users.
ES6 is the main difference now. That might change, the full story is already larger but that's the most identifiable difference. If you don't care about ES6 or don't even know what ES6 is then you probably shouldn't use io.js yet. It's in beta, shouldn't be in production yet, and once it is ready for that we'll need to update the messaging to reflect that.
We do need to do a better job of address what "originally based on Node.js" means. Perhaps we can alter that sentence and make it a link to the Changelog? |
|
Should we s/Beta/Unstable? |
|
Well, you could certainly argue that "beta" has very little meaning in I think "why does it exist" is a quite important part of "what can I do I like a top-level changelog link, always; when a new version comes out, Is screen real-estate really such a precious resource here that we need On 1/14/15 3:53 PM, Mikeal Rogers wrote:
|
|
Yeah, the more I think about it the more I think about "Beta" inferring the maturing of a "product" not a particular line of development in that product. I'm +1 on changing to "Unstable." |
It's just basic media training, people who aren't that familiar with the technology won't be able to keep their head around more than one or two bullet points. Even while staying on message with the press they've already totally fucked up the reporting about all of this. In particular, anything they can latch on to as a "fight" they'll use to ignore everything else we say about the project. That's why stuff like the governance or direct side-by-side comparisons with node.js will derail the messaging. |
|
+1 link to changelog, I worked hard on that shit ;) To me honestly the weirdest thing about the homepage copy is that the primary descriptor is "npm-compatible platform." Not e.g. "JavaScript runtime," but "npm-compatible platform." If you were to describe Ruby, would you say "A RubyGems-compatible platform"? |
|
I think we can all agree the tagline isn't right. Beyond that the debate here is around what's too much information for the homepage. Note #54 just landed which mirrors some of these content suggestions over in the FAQ. |
|
Step 1. Get a quick commit out which includes "unstable" vs "beta" and the changelog link? We can continue debating the rest of the copy / semver details / etc. from there? |
|
@domenic First of all, the biggest thing on the whole page says "JavaScript IO" so I think it's clear that we're a JS platform. Maybe is should say "JavaScript Platform" or something better than just "IO." Secondly, at this moment npm is more widely and well understood than |
Yes please :) |
|
I've taken those out and opened #56 |
|
The wording 'unstable' means homebrew won't ship iojs likely, see Homebrew/legacy-homebrew#35853 (comment) |
|
We should revert it to "Beta". It's the most reflective of the stability, and no-one had complained about it. |
|
FYI homebrew seems to have reversed that with the additional debate/clarifications. But, yes, a decision should be made. |
|
I'll be honest, it's not like we're marketing this thing to consumers on a billboard and the copy needs to be as short and concise as possible before they lose focus and keep driving. Providing a short summary of what this is, rather than a catchy tagline, is a good thing.
|
|
I'm wary to include too much info on the main landing page as well. If devs are going to the site in the first place, generally they are invested enough to click a link or two to find out a bit more. Also, we need to keep in mind, that io.js will need to be pitched to CEOs and CTOs for inclusion in company systems, and anyone with less than a technical background will be put off by too much info on the landing page itself. |
|
That seems very farfetched to me. Maybe, a simpler homepage could make a difference, in that very specific case, where CEOs and CTOs look at the homepage of a technology their devs are using, rather than listening to a presentation or pitch where the devs talk about the technology itself. Assuming of course that these people judge a technical project on the amount of whitespace on its homepage, not on its technical content. I've seen advertisements for sports bars that contain more information than the existing homepage. We're talking about a project that incorporates the combined efforts of dozens of people, based other projects that likely have hundreds of man-years between them. All of that comes together to create a very complicated piece of software that is totally new. It's okay to spend a few paragraphs explaining what it is! Many software projects have very technical pages and they are doing quite fine from that point of view. Let's not dumb things down. <100 words is not "too much info". The proposed homepage is still very, very sparse. The reality is that io.js is a complete newcomer right now. The focus needs to be on education. The website's focus should be on educating existing devs and Node shops on what io.js and why they should use it. The FAQ doesn't quite answer these questions, the homepage certainly doesn't, and the endless confusion in every discussion thread about io.js on reddit, HN, et al should be enough of an indicator that we could improve in this area. |
|
@STRML, I do understand what you're getting at, and I think it's been said before (specifically by @snostorm ) that the current tag-line and content on the site is a little too sparse. That will be changed. But the general consensus that I'm seeing from all the main collaborators on this is to opt for less info rather than multiple paragraphs on the landing page. So while we are looking at implementing something similar to what your PR is presenting, I think all the other collaborators were suggesting is going in and trimming a bit of the verbosity before we merge it. |
|
@therebelrobot It's not about including too much information, it's about being able to get across what your project actually is and why you'd want to use it. Right now the landing page is incredibly sparse on information and I'm fairly sure that it's only people who already know what iojs that'll understand it. Just look at most of the discussion over at Hacker News: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8884128, it seems most there would agree that your website need better wording. |
On nearly every thread I've seen on social media about io.js (HN, Reddit, etc.), a good portion of the dominant conversation circles around Okay, what is this? rather than the far more interesting conversation about what io.js brings to the table, how it can be used today, what it means for Node going forward, etc., etc.
While some of this information is available in the FAQ, even the FAQ is sparse and needs expansion (for a later PR).
This PR adds what I believe is the most useful information to have at a glance on the homepage to properly explain what io.js is and what it means to developers. io.js is going to have to educate devs if it wants them to use it, so information needs to be ready and available, rather than hidden behind other pages or in the repo.