Improving the way the apertus message is communicated
Open, NormalPublic


This task is closely related to

Allan started improving this page:

and his revised version of this page is here:

Philippe provided feedback:

"tbh I think it's too summarized.

We need some clear titles from the perspective of someone who doesn't know what open source is. Take some simple example, like cooking receipts (the difference between a backed cake you buy and having the receipt), at least something very simple to understand at the beginning of the page.

What is open source ?
Why does it matter ?
What are the benefits for the users / the association / the company
Comparison between traditional model and the open source model"
sebastian updated the task description. (Show Details)
sebastian raised the priority of this task from to Normal.
sebastian assigned this task to allan.
sebastian added a project: Restricted Project.
sebastian added subscribers: sebastian, philippej, Sasha.
allan added a comment.EditedOct 30 2014, 10:28 PM

The issue is explaining what apertus is, and why it is that way.

I started out working on the opensource page, because i felt it was a shame that such an important point was lost in the midst of conflicting language, under a nested menu.

To explain why apertus does free software, in a way that is factual, easy to understand, and doesnt incite anger, I think it must be explained from the point of view that apertus has rather than via fsf or others. The point they make of it, good or bad, is beside the point, since it is a general one, rather than specific to the project.

Naturally this new focal point drew in the history of apertus, the idea behind it, which in turn made the history page redundant. Good.

It became clear that as i kept losing and changing, the parts that i had trouble doing anything with, were subordinate to the points i managed to score with whatever was above the fold.

Then i took a hard look at the landing page, now that the main problem was sorted, and i exchanged the good bits from the opensource page with that.

Have a look and give your feedback.

Also take note of T62 which is related, but to do with the structure of this work.

Edit: I agree the remainder of the opensource page isnt good, but it is meant to be an in-depth more specific addition to the introductory course served on the new landing page. Assuming the reader has no prior knowledge is good, and then first things must come first. Clicking on something that says "Why opensource?" for someone that doesnt know the term is equivalent to looking at "Why -----?"

As for the content of the opensource page, it is very easy to paint a picture of opposition. It is harder, (which is why its halfway failing), to take the lead.

An analogy is also an abstraction to the essence of the point, which I think is this:

From the point of view of someone who chose to make a product, camera, there are decisions to be made to make it the best product, camera it can be. Popular opinion sides with freedom, which is why its equally obvious that it has to be the free software way, to make it _a good product_ which is what counts. You can never separate that from freedom, because then you are at a loss. It is a clear distraction, even if the product in other aspects has merit. Cutting it short there is a lack of respect for a good product. When you consider the reasons for being cynical and closing things down, spying on users, et cetera, that really makes one think. Whatever the decision is; honesty is how to make honest products. And they are made because there is a need for them.

On a theoretical level, which is already covered, but it needs some easy to understand bulletpoints of things you only get if you do it in what we have now come to understand, is the right way.

Future updates, wider capabilities and so on, maybe with specific points that are interesting.

Again it could widen to include also environmental aspects, and choice of materials and so on. This is something im wondering about, and could be written down as soon as choices are made. Preferably also it could serve to see some community input beforehand.

allan renamed this task from Improving to Improving the way the apertus message is communicated.Oct 31 2014, 1:50 AM

My suggestion to make this more efficient, and also to learn to work together would be work on the open source page together in a google doc, then when all feedback is gathered, to update the open source page on the live website.

Would this work for you ?

allan added a comment.EditedNov 1 2014, 9:37 PM

Sure, invite me and i can take note of what needs to change, im unsure if you get the formatting on google doc though, so its not a full fledged solution.
Have to wait for the revisionism plugin to drupal to be implemented for that i think.

I cant edit my draft, but this is what i would change

Adding the recycle icon, lead free/rohs, and green earth symbols to the bulletpoints saves space and is content aware.

Adding logos to creative commons, gplv3 and cern open hardware

Link to on "apertus° is open to any contribution in a direction you want it to take. "
Link to /company on "It started in the workshops of enthusiasts who built their own camera prototypes."
Link to /association in a link on the bottom that says "impressum" where it is expected to be found, and also works with the latin theme.
(i dont really know what the difference between company and association is though, this could be made more clear)
The /team page is important, but i dont know where to fit it into the landing page.

I think the rss news should be on the left hand side, in a less verbose fashion. Just the headline and the picture would suffice.

Other things, the first image on the current landing page is good at explaining the /cameras section, keep as is.

Here is a google doc link where I pasted the current content :

Better to suggest changes as comments, so we see what you'd like to achieve. Also it's easier to actually see what is changed this way.

When you say you can't edit your draft, what are you referring to ? The wiki, the drupal page?

allan added a comment.EditedNov 2 2014, 9:11 PM

I mean this which is the result of working the message thats within the realm of the google doc document down to something manageble, and then refining it.

Same as with the remainder of the opensource page that i left there, it loses relevance as it progresses. In my view a clear message is one that is distinct and said once, well.

Instead of being bombarded with reason why it could be a good idea, from the point of view of why the idea is good, it needs to be honest and simple.

Are there any points worth making you find on that isnt in ?

I think we should work from that, as a landing page scope.

Historical and more in-depth concerns, for the advanced reader, i think should be left over to the opensource page, and the history page. isnt good yet.

The current history page is good enough for now.

sebastian edited projects, added Web Content & Documentation; removed Restricted Project.Mar 10 2016, 9:29 PM