[Imc-alternatives] DESIGN: meeting log May 12

[Jay]

Hi alternatives imc,

In this exciting installment of "IRC Chat With Nick, Michael and Jay" 
(with Davo making a cameo), we get more in depth about things like:
-- the idea of whether to use mainly taxonomy or tags
-- how we're envisioning using topics/categories
-- how we conceive the front page of the site (doubling as both the 
home page and the main news page?  or should there be a separate main 
news page?)  and
-- how we are picturing integrating all the information the 
alternatives site makes available into each of the main sections.

Though a lot of these issues lead to big theoretical discussions that 
are difficult to pin down into practical site design, we're making 
really great progress toward doing just that.

At some point this week I'll try to summarize some of these big 
design/layout/navigation issues so people who haven't been part of 
the design discussions can offer ideas.

Jay

***

Session Start: Mon May 12 21:09:08 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
Session Close: Mon May 12 21:09:08 2008

Session Start: Mon May 12 21:09:08 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
03[21:09] * Now talking in #alternatives
01[21:09] <Jay> hi!  Sorry I'm a few minutes late.
[21:09] <nicklally> no problem!
01[21:11] <Jay> Michael doesn't seem to be here yet, eh?
[21:11] <nicklally> nope
01[21:12] <Jay> Should we wait until 9:15 then start talking through things?
01[21:12] <Jay> I know you have to get going by 11 eastern.
[21:13] <nicklally> sure. although it's 9:15 right now.
03[21:14] * davo sets mode: +oo Jay nicklally
[21:14] <@davo> hey
[21:14] <@nicklally> hello
[21:15] <@davo> 11.14am here in Australia ..
01[21:15] <@Jay> Hey!  G'morning.
[21:15] <@davo> hiya Jay!
[21:15] <@nicklally> we need to sync our watches before this mission!
01[21:15] <@Jay> Have you been following along with all these 
wireframe discussions?
01[21:15] <@Jay> Yeah, I'm always a few minutes behind.
[21:15] <@nicklally> me? yeah.
01[21:16] <@Jay> I mean Davo.  Do you want to participate in our 
nuts-and-bolts wireframing chat tonight?
[21:16] <@davo> I'm actually at work but will definitely be checking 
out what's going on
[21:16] <@davo> by tonight you mean now?
[21:16] <@davo> or later?
06[21:17] * @davo hates timezones
[21:17] <@davo> heh
[21:17] <@nicklally> right now
01[21:17] <@Jay> Ah yes, tonight meaning this morning.
[21:17] <@davo> well I'm here ..
01[21:17] <@Jay> Great!  Feel free to ask for any background if Nick 
and I talk about something we chatted about some other time.
[21:17] <@davo> I've read thru the naming stuff which was the last 
posts to the list ..
[21:18] <@davo> ok cheers
[21:18] <@nicklally> are you on crabgrass?
[21:18] <@nicklally> we posted the wireframes we created
[21:18] <@nicklally> which is what we'll be talking about tonight/this morning
01[21:18] <@Jay> Yeah, that would be a good thing.  Then we'll all 
be looking at the same stuff.  I forgot to sign in, I'll do that now.
[21:19] <@nicklally> Davo--if you're not on crabgrass and would like 
to see them, I can post them online real quick
[21:19] <@davo> ok great!
[21:20] <@nicklally> ok, coming up. then shall we start?
01[21:21] <@Jay> Let's start.
[21:21] <@nicklally> http://thunderwhip.com/wireframes/
01[21:22] <@Jay> My main question right now has to do with the way 
we want to present catagories on the front page.
[21:22] <@nicklally> OK. I guess we can talk about 1) changes to the 
wireframes and 2) Next step
[21:22] <@nicklally> so there's talk about adding fixed categories 
and having user-added categories, right?
01[21:23] <@Jay> That's true.  When Josh, Dave Z and Aaron C and I 
met to go through the PhillyIMC site so Josh could be more familiar 
with Drupal, we talked a lot about categories and how to tag them....
01[21:24] <@Jay> The PhillyIMC lets people use any tag they want for 
articles which leads to some ineteresting tags but also makes things 
scattered and hard to find.
01[21:24] <@Jay> ..
01[21:25] <@Jay> So, we talked about the idea of our coming up with 
a handful of main fixed categories (which of course would be able to 
grow over time) and let people also tag their own articles...
[21:25] <@nicklally> Yeah. That's an interesting issue.
Session Close: Mon May 12 21:25:56 2008

Session Start: Mon May 12 21:25:56 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
02[21:25] * Disconnected
Session Close: Mon May 12 21:26:31 2008

Session Start: Mon May 12 21:31:39 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
Session Close: Mon May 12 21:31:39 2008

Session Start: Mon May 12 21:31:40 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
03[21:31] * Now talking in #alternatives
01[21:31] <Jay> I'm back!
[21:31] <@davo> yay
[21:31] <@nicklally> yay!
[21:31] <michaelv> so, in this reference, would taxonomies with tags 
be more structured than just entering key words separated by spaces? 
would there be specific categories to select to refine the place in 
which the tags can reach?
[21:31] <michaelv> hey jay
[21:32] <@nicklally> this is what you missed:
[21:32] <@nicklally> davo: I think you can have both. I taxonomy 
system and tags ..
[21:32] <@nicklally> [6:33pm] davo: I find tags good for browsing, 
but not necessarily for finding information I am after
[21:32] <@nicklally> [6:33pm] michaelv: I think crabgrass uses taxonomies
[21:32] <@nicklally> [6:33pm] michaelv: for tags
[21:32] <@nicklally> [6:33pm] nicklally: what about the wikipedia 
model? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Portals
01[21:32] <Jay> Thanks Nick. reading...
01[21:32] <Jay> checking out the link...
[21:32] <@davo> taxonomies and tags I think are very different methodologies
[21:33] <@davo> tags are not necessarily related .. there's no 
relationship between tags
[21:33] <@davo> in taxonomies there are
[21:33] <@davo> whether that be parent/child/sibling etc
[21:33] <@nicklally> is wikipedia an eample of taxonomies? if not, 
what is an example so i can understand better
[21:33] <@davo> yes
[21:34] <@nicklally> ok, so wikipedia is also an example of 
taxonomies that are user-defined. yes?
[21:34] <@davo> where tags for example, a picture of a dog .. someone 
could put Dog, Dogs, Pets, Animals, companion, Ralph etc
[21:34] <@davo> tags are good, but very different
[21:34] <@davo> yes ..
[21:34] <michaelv> one way to search for information in a shot gun kind of way
[21:35] <@nicklally> ok, great. i think i like taxonomies then. 
although, i think we're getting way ahead of ourselves now
[21:35] <@nicklally> we only really need to know where they go for 
the wireframes!
[21:35] <@davo> I like both :) I just think they are different :)
[21:35] <@davo> yep
[21:35] <@nicklally> gotcha. thanks for explaining that. i never knew 
the distinction.
01[21:35] <Jay> Kind of, but if we decide to use tags primarily than 
we can just offer a tag cloud somewhere on the pages....
01[21:36] <Jay> But if we decide to use a more fixed taxonomy then 
we can do things like wikipedia does by offering portal pages.  In 
this sense, each category page would be a portal page leading to that 
kind of content (i.e. alternative education)
[21:37] <@nicklally> I like the second idea.
[21:37] <michaelv> I might be on a really short timeline--family issues...
[21:38] <@nicklally> it would be a really good way to customize your 
indymedia experience w/o even logging in
[21:38] <@nicklally> i, for instance, might have the art and activism 
page bookmarked and return to it for reference
01[21:38] <Jay> I like the second idea too. (michael, when you gotta 
go you gotta go).
[21:38] <@nicklally> yeah, no worries. we'll fill you in.
[21:38] <@nicklally> are there any pressing issues you'd like to 
address before you have to leave?
01[21:39] <Jay> Nick, yeah, I think so.  Where this tag/taxonomy 
question is important to us relating to wireframes...
01[21:39] <Jay> (Michael, if you have anything pressing, press on it 
and we'll divert from this topic.)
01[21:40] <Jay> re: categories... it leads to a thought I brought up 
in an e-mail this week, that we would do away with the category list 
you present in your wireframe (top right under navigation) and do it 
another way.
01[21:40] <Jay> ...
[21:40] <@nicklally> Ok, how do you suggest?
[21:41] <@nicklally> I guess when we're talking about taxonomies, i 
picture the main topics going there.
[21:41] <@nicklally> where the categories are, that is.
01[21:42] <Jay> Rather than link the main topis there, I was 
thinking we could put links to the main topics in the place where you 
have "more features" on your home.gif wireframe and offer a blurb 
from the top feature on each of the category pages...
01[21:43] <Jay> we'd move the blog articles to below the newswire on 
the right, or offer both newswire and blogs as tabbed options.
01[21:43] <Jay> Did I explain what I'm envisioning?
[21:44] <@nicklally> Ok, yeah.
[21:44] <@nicklally> one reason i like them up high is that they 
serve as a secondary navigation
[21:44] <@nicklally> and can remain solid throughout the landing pages.
01[21:45] <Jay> Ah yeah, I do like that. hmm.
[21:45] <@nicklally> if they moved down, we'd need to figure out what 
to do with them on two-column layout pages, because they would change 
radically.
[21:46] <@nicklally> or disappear
[21:47] <@nicklally> do you want them to move down to bring the 
newswire to the forefront, or do you have other reasoning? (i 
probably didn't read the email as well as i should have)
01[21:47] <Jay> One thing we could do -- not instead of finding a 
fixed place for them on the page, necessarily, but it's something we 
can do -- is have the main categories be available as the submenu 
links up top, under the "news" link.
01[21:47] <Jay> Bringing the newswire to the forefront is important, yeah.
[21:48] <@nicklally> news link? you mean the horizontal big buttons?
01[21:48] <Jay> But I also like the idea of offering blurbs from 
each of the category pages on the main page.  Or, thinking aloud, 
maybe that would just be something we'd offer on the main page of the 
"news" section, makinga two column design there easier..
01[21:48] <Jay> Yeah, the horizontal big buttos.
01[21:48] <Jay> buttons.
[21:49] <@nicklally> we could have a big categories button 
everywhere. and a categories box on landing pages.
01[21:50] <Jay> When you're saying "landing pages" what do you 
mean?  Do you mean the main page for each of the main parts of the 
site (news/netowrking/knowledgebase/wants-needs).
[21:50] <@nicklally> or we could do like campusactivism.org and have 
drop-down lists, which really save space if we want to sneak it in 
above the newswire
[21:50] <@nicklally> yeah, i guess i picture the homepage and the 
ones you described above being similar in layout and all being able 
to function as its own home page
[21:50] <michaelv> I think a menu button tab on the horizontal with 
submenu for categories would be great
[21:51] <michaelv> the menu tab button could say "categories" with 
the submenu options being the categories
[21:51] <@nicklally> do you think landing pages should also have a 
categories box with short descriptions?
01[21:52] <Jay> Short descriptions of the categories?
[21:53] <@nicklally> oh, i think i misread one of your posts. i 
thought you suggested using the "more features" box to have 
categories with short descripts
01[21:54] <Jay> I was thinking of the features from the "more 
features" actually being the top articles from each of the category pages.
[21:54] <@nicklally> gotcha.
01[21:55] <Jay> So when an article on the "alternative education" 
page is promoted to the top, it would appear as a blurb on the front 
page in the "more features" box, taking you to the main page for that category.
[21:55] <@nicklally> so what are people's thoughts on methods to 
display categories? we have a bunch of options.
[21:55] <@nicklally> Ok, I like that.
[21:56] <@nicklally> 1) top right, foxed 2) menu item 3) box on 
homepage w/featured articles 4) drop-down list
01[21:56] <Jay> Ah yes, choices.
[21:56] <@nicklally> i really don't know what i like best yet.
[21:57] <@nicklally> foxed=fixed   ha!
[21:57] <michaelv> I just think if we move categories to the main 
horizontal menus, it will be accessible all the time
01[21:57] <Jay> Well, I think no matter what we do below, we can 
kind of do #2 by having the categories be the links in the submenu 
for the news section.
[21:58] <michaelv> and perhaps color-coding categories, or in some 
watermarked kind of way so that featured content form categories 
would be recognized as that category by the visual aid too.
01[21:58] <Jay> So the news submenu sections would be "alternative 
education" "alternative healthcare" "sustainable 
environment"...whatever we decide the main category names will be.
[21:58] <@nicklally> well, on a tangent, i think categories should 
definitely be displayed with all articles.
[21:58] <michaelv> I think having categories in the menu is a great 
idea, and leaves more room in the main nav for other things
[21:59] <@nicklally> what's the diff between the menu and main nav?
[21:59] <michaelv> perhaps categories in the newswire and/or features 
can be identified by a specific icon
[21:59] <@nicklally> and do we have a new section proposed?
[21:59] <@nicklally> news, i mean
01[22:00] <Jay> Are we using "menu" and "main navigation" 
interchangably?  Or are they referring to different things?
[22:00] <michaelv> Well, below the horizontal menu is the main nav I 
was referring to, where featured content is, and publish, etc
[22:00] <michaelv> I guess they are both collectively the main nav together
[22:01] <@nicklally> no one even has a "news" section on their 
wireframes. we probably should add that, eh?
[22:01] <michaelv> I think "categories" or "features" in the tabs 
menu would be better than "news", as far as getting attention
[22:02] <@nicklally> i think the categories should not be the drop 
down of a news link. if categories are on the menu they should be 
their own link
01[22:02] <Jay> I was initially conceiving the front page at the 
main news page, but maybe it shouldn't be.
[22:02] <@nicklally> yeah, me too.
[22:02] <michaelv> what is your thoughts?
[22:02] <@nicklally> and categories would apply to everything, not just news.
[22:02] <michaelv> si
[22:03] <@nicklally> although, i guess there would be a link under 
featured articles which would link to more articles and effectively 
be a landing page for the news. same with the newswire
[22:04] <@nicklally> oh my, this is getting complex!
[22:04] <michaelv> oye
[22:04] <michaelv> complexity is fun
[22:05] <michaelv> as long as it is simple
[22:05] <michaelv> but new ideas are always like that
[22:05] <@nicklally> ok. quick vote: categories on the right where 
they are now or moved to be a menu button??
[22:05] <michaelv> i think moved to a menu button
01[22:05] <Jay> My gut says menu button.
[22:06] <michaelv> that would clear up some other info to the right 
area with Publish, etc
01[22:06] <Jay> But I still like having the "more features" lead 
people to the category pages.  So, there would be the ubiquitous way 
to get to the categories on every page, through the menu, but you 
could also go to the front page and see the collected headlines from 
all the categories.
01[22:07] <Jay> So when you're on the knowledge base page you could 
go the main navigation up top and get to any category page.
Session Close: Mon May 12 22:07:37 2008

Session Start: Mon May 12 22:07:37 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
02[22:07] * Disconnected
Session Close: Mon May 12 22:07:56 2008

Session Start: Mon May 12 22:08:46 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
Session Close: Mon May 12 22:08:46 2008

Session Start: Mon May 12 22:08:46 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
03[22:08] * Now talking in #alternatives
01[22:08] <JayPhilly> Back again.  My connection's odd tonight.
[22:09] <michaelv> can you fill him in nick?
[22:09] <@nicklally> what was the last thing you read? it doesn't say 
you logged out
01[22:09] <JayPhilly> I read myself saying "so when you're on the 
knowedge base page..."
02[22:09] * Jay (jaypsand at 61024f.c0b1a9.6bab4f.d4fa84) Quit (Ping 
timeout: 121 seconds)
[22:10] <michaelv> you are logged in twice, not now
[22:10] <@nicklally> i don't see that.
[22:10] <michaelv> we are debating where the categories go, me either
[22:10] <michaelv> either in the tabs menu, or right of Featured
[22:10] <@nicklally> here's from your last you wrote:
[22:10] <@nicklally> michaelv: that would clear up some other info to 
the right area with Publish, etc
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:09pm] nicklally: ok, i'm still leaning 
towards where they are, but i will think on it!
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:09pm] nicklally: that's a good point michael.
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:09pm] nicklally: the fact that the 
publish/contribute button would become prominent makes me want to 
move it to the menu
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:09pm] michaelv: maybe that can be where the 
admin and user interface stuff goes once people log in?
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:10pm] nicklally: the fact that it can be a 
real clear, bold secondary navigation that is conceptually different 
than the top nav makes me want to keep it where it is
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:11pm] nicklally: i think it should be on all 
pages whether or not you're logged in as a clear sign that you can 
contribute to the content
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:11pm] michaelv: i like it as a tab--if we do 
the tabs right, people will find them appealing and roll over them
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:11pm] nicklally: publish/contribute or categories?
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:11pm] michaelv: keeping from having too many 
will be key to that I think
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:11pm] JayPhilly joined the chat room.
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:12pm] JayPhilly: Back again.  My connection's 
odd tonight.
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:12pm] michaelv: can you fill him in nick?
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:12pm] nicklally: what was the last thing you 
read? it doesn't say you logged out
[22:10] <@nicklally> [7:12pm] JayPhilly: I read myself saying "so 
when you're on the knowedge base page..."
[22:11] <michaelv> my vote is for tabs, reserving the area below 
Publish for other info, like admin buttons and user interface for 
logged in users, etc
01[22:11] <JayPhilly> So, in my ten seconds being disconnected, I 
thought about how I like the idea of having the four main secionts 
(news/network/knowledge/needs) each with its own "landing page" the 
front page would be kind of a portal, though it would feature a lot of news.
[22:11] <@nicklally> ok, i want to make sketches with both of these 
ideas. how does that sound.
[22:11] <michaelv> sure
01[22:11] <JayPhilly> Two sketches sounds perfecdt.
[22:11] <@nicklally> Ok, so "home" would be another link in your idea jay?
01[22:11] <JayPhilly> Above I meant "four main sections"
[22:12] <michaelv> i like that idea, jay--great and simple way organize infor
[22:12] <@nicklally> the front page being the fifth.
01[22:12] <JayPhilly> I guess "home" would be another link, 
yeah.  It would be a page with different content than the main news page.
01[22:12] <JayPhilly> Yeah, a fifth.
[22:12] <@nicklally> ok, i like that.
[22:12] <michaelv> could be the logo
[22:12] <@nicklally> and where do categories fit in?
[22:13] <michaelv> are news and categories being used interchangeably?
01[22:13] <JayPhilly> Categories would primarily be a main subset of news.
[22:13] <@nicklally> and this is what i mean by it being conceptually 
different than the top nav we have.
[22:13] <@nicklally> but don't we want categories to apply to 
knowledge? and even networking?
01[22:14] <JayPhilly> That's a great question, and I think you're 
right, categories should be all throughout the site in some way.  hmm.
[22:14] <michaelv> so the root menu tab could be categories, with 
news/network etc as sub menu landing pages
01[22:14] <JayPhilly> thinking...
[22:15] <michaelv> i think if we can nail down the main categories, 
each with a separate landing page, that would organize information 
better, make it simpler
[22:15] <michaelv> each landing page like the home page, but built on 
whatever theme the category is
[22:15] <michaelv> for that page
[22:15] <@nicklally> can you explain that idea a little more. i mean, 
where are you suggesting the categories go?
[22:15] <michaelv> i say categories be one of the main tabs
[22:16] <@nicklally> btw, i do like the idea of having category 
landing pages. a lot.
01[22:16] <JayPhilly> Yes, definitely.  Each category should have 
its own main page.  Nick's question is right though -- how do people 
find the main category pages?
[22:16] <michaelv> with the sub-menu giving the categories options
[22:16] <michaelv> under categories in the main menu, which would be 
on every sub page set for ease of navigation and consistency
[22:16] <@nicklally> Is it confusing to have a categories button, 
since categories is conceptually different and overlaps with every 
other main section we're talking about?
[22:17] <@nicklally> maybe it's not, i'm not sure
01[22:17] <JayPhilly> The only reason I'm trying to conceive another 
way than having categories on the main menu is that I really like the 
simpicity of the four secions (news/network. etc.)
[22:17] <michaelv> i think it is a way to link to those main sections
01[22:17] <JayPhilly> Yeah, I think categories overlaps and is 
differnt than a main section.
[22:18] <@nicklally> hmmmm.... thinking out loud here: if we have the 
four main sections w/o the categories, clicking on one narrows down 
your focus.
[22:18] <michaelv> what other word can we use that draws interest
[22:18] <michaelv> would be say "topics" like with indybay?
[22:18] <@nicklally> then clicking on a category under that section 
narrows it down more in a real simple, understandable way
[22:18] <@nicklally> whereas, there is not that simple relationship 
if you have categories thrown in because it narrows things down in a 
totally different way
[22:19] <@nicklally> man, i could write a theoretical book on this topic!
[22:20] <michaelv> another side note: what about regions, like on 
indybay and uk imc's?
[22:20] <@nicklally> i'm not ready for that yet
[22:20] <michaelv> since we are global, shouldn't this also be a 
consideration? fair enough
[22:20] <@nicklally> yes, definitely
[22:21] <@nicklally> for the categories, can i sketch both methods 
and we can think about it and maybe ask some other people?
[22:21] <michaelv> it would probably be best as under "community" 
with a whole page dedicated to regions, like these other topics and 
categories we are talking about
[22:21] <michaelv> sure
[22:21] <@nicklally> unless someone has some new insight? i feel a 
little stuck right not
[22:22] <@nicklally> now
01[22:22] <JayPhilly> Yeah Nick, two sketches would be great.  We 
can each put some more theoretical thought into where categories fit as well.
[22:22] <michaelv> i feel sure about my feeling on where to put categories
[22:22] <michaelv> but I agree that two sketches makes sense
[22:22] <@nicklally> ok, sounds good
[22:23] <@nicklally> for regions....
[22:23] <@nicklally> what if the goal was to destroy the main 
indymedia site? ie: send people to local indymedia sites?
01[22:23] <JayPhilly> :)  By the way, in looking quickly for an 
example of what I was picturing with the category blurbs going down 
the left column.  Newsweek.com kind of does something like that with 
its "voices" boxes.  In my vision, each of those boxes would be the 
main story of one of the category news pages.
01[22:24] <JayPhilly> There are better examples, I'm sure, but it's 
one I found quickly.
01[22:24] <JayPhilly> And I'm also kind of not ready to talk 
regionalization.  That sounds like a big topic and something for later.
[22:24] <@nicklally> that's a good example.
[22:25] <@nicklally> ok, you might be right...
[22:26] <michaelv> yes, just thinking out loud
01[22:26] <JayPhilly> (I guess all along I was thinking as 
"categories" as a subset of news,  but now I like the idea of 
categories going throughout the site...Yay for nick's two sketches!
[22:26] <@nicklally> it's a good thing to start thinking about.
01[22:26] <JayPhilly> (Btw: People have been excited about 
destroying the main indymedia site from the very beginning, even 
before there was one. :))))
[22:27] <michaelv> perhaps on that note, hmmm, would that be along 
the network thinking, or different? would different global regions 
independently manage region page sets?
[22:27] <@nicklally> ha!
[22:27] <michaelv> lol jay
[22:27] <michaelv> it is rather confusing anywho
[22:27] <michaelv> I like the way us-imc is set up
[22:28] <michaelv> in the sense of re-directing people to the origin 
imc of the featured article
01[22:28] <JayPhilly> Look at all their topics running down the left column.
[22:29] <michaelv> which is yet another thing to ponder for some 
featured articles about alternatives that appear in the features column
[22:29] <@nicklally> i never even knew there was a us indymedia site!
[22:29] <michaelv> ;)
[22:30] <michaelv> looking...
01[22:30] <JayPhilly> Yeah, they do good work.  There were 
complaints at some point that news on the main indymedia page was too 
u.s.-oriented so a US IMC page started.  They act as a portal to US 
based IMCs.
[22:30] <@nicklally> maybe regions is important right now because 
alternatives will start as a global page before people adopt the 
technology, right?
[22:30] <@nicklally> or maybe we can lump regions in with categories 
so we don't have to think about it yet.
01[22:31] <JayPhilly> When you talk about "the technology" what do you mean?
[22:31] <@nicklally> if we're creating new software, before people 
start using it.
[22:31] <@nicklally> or is that the goal? to make software for people 
to use locally? or just to create a global site.
[22:32] <michaelv> cool, I like some of the ways the main block is 
set up, esp the right area with tabs for video photo audio, etc
[22:32] <@nicklally> (where is the embarrassed icon?)
[22:33] <michaelv> i think technology should be a category too
[22:33] <michaelv> good call Jay, the newsweek site is very appealing visually
[22:33] <michaelv> in many distinct ways
01[22:34] <JayPhilly> For me the direct goal is to set up a great 
site focused on alternatives information and activism, but a grander 
hidden agenda is for the way the alternatives site works to be such 
an advance that local IMCs everywhere will apply it to their own situations.
[22:34] <@nicklally> ok, that's my vision as well.
[22:34] <michaelv> my thoughts exactly, which is why lpimc is involved
[22:34] <michaelv> we want to start out that way
[22:34] <michaelv> i think dc imc wants to as well
01[22:34] <JayPhilly> Another thing we all have in common -- a 
hidden agenda to change the world!
[22:35] <@nicklally> duh!
[22:35] <michaelv> ;)
01[22:35] <JayPhilly> yeah, maybe not so hidden
01[22:35] <JayPhilly> Okay, so what else do we have to decide tonight?
[22:35] <michaelv> I like the fact that we are focusing more on the 
positive than the negative too
[22:35] <@nicklally> ok, so is regionalism important? i can see it 
being central. i can see it being lumped under categories. or it can 
be unimportant, like on most global news sites.
[22:36] <michaelv> could be under community
[22:36] <@nicklally> other than that, i think if anyone sees 
something on the current wireframes that should be changes, we should 
talk about that
[22:36] <michaelv> if a page is set up for regions, it could have 
newsfeeds and other features specific to regions or region-focused
01[22:36] <JayPhilly> I think regionalism will have to be someting 
that will have to organically develop as people use the site.
[22:37] <michaelv> yes definitely
[22:37] <michaelv> which is why I was saying perhaps different 
regions can sign up and admin that page set
[22:37] <@nicklally> ok, i can agree with that. so shall we pass on 
deciding about it now?
[22:37] <michaelv> probably a good idea
01[22:37] <JayPhilly> Yeah, I think so.
[22:37] <@nicklally> ok by me
[22:37] <@nicklally> great, moving on....
01[22:37] <JayPhilly> Looking at Nick's wireframes to see what other 
questoins arise.
[22:38] <michaelv> but I do want to talk about the issue regions 
brings up though, because I think it is important, but it can wait
[22:38] <@nicklally> ok, i agree. and i think we can wait.
01[22:38] <JayPhilly> It's definitely important, but I think it can wait.
01[22:38] <JayPhilly> One thing I'm thinking goes back to the basic 
sections of the site.
01[22:40] <JayPhilly> If we go with four sections (again with the 
alliteration, news/network/knowledge/needs, though that's not what we 
have to call them), then on the front page below the knowledge-base 
features and the networking features we should include a box about 
featured posts from the wants/needs section.
[22:41] <@nicklally> this could be in the "network features" box
[22:41] <@nicklally> i included "classifieds" thinking of something like this
[22:41] <michaelv> i have to go in a minute
[22:41] <@nicklally> another conceptual question: should wants/needs 
be separate from "networking"? if so, why?
[22:42] <michaelv> too bad there is an indybay imc, because indybay 
would be a great meme for wants/needs
01[22:43] <JayPhilly> I picture "networking" beimg more on the 
social side, focusing on user profiles and the links people are 
making personally and organizationally.  I see wants/needs as a kind 
of craigslisty think that could be able to stand on its own.
[22:43] <@nicklally> ok. makes sense
[22:43] <michaelv> dido
[22:44] <@nicklally> but there is overlap between the two. you argue 
that linking about to help people with their "wants/needs" is 
absolutely central to networking
[22:44] <michaelv> any other pressing thangs to discuss?
[22:44] <@nicklally> you could argue that linking up to help people 
with their "wants/needs" is absolutely central to networking
01[22:44] <JayPhilly> Now I'm thinking back to the conversation I 
had with Josh/Dave/Aaron and trying to remember how much of it I 
summarized and sent to the two of you.  We talked about the 
integratoin of all the sections a whole lot.
[22:45] <michaelv> i dont remember reading it
[22:45] <@nicklally> i would like to hear more of what came out of 
that meeting. these are all complicated issues.
01[22:45] <JayPhilly> Michael: Nothing super-pressing, i think.
[22:45] <@nicklally> no, i agree
[22:45] <michaelv> ok, i have to go now, but fill me in on anything I miss
[22:46] <@nicklally> cool, will do.
01[22:46] <JayPhilly> I mean, everything is super-pressing, but the 
category thing was my main question.  See ya michael.
[22:46] <michaelv> thx, peace out
02[22:46] * michaelv (michaelv at 2d9871.7eba51.78b577.dcaa48) Quit 
(Quit: Leaving)
01[22:46] <JayPhilly> Still there nick?
[22:46] <@nicklally> and i bring up these issues, not because i 
disagree with anything being said, but because i think we should 
think about the conceptual reasoning for all these things we do.
[22:46] <@nicklally> yeah!
01[22:48] <JayPhilly> I completely understand.  Yes, now that I 
think about it, Josh, Aaron, David had some minor breakthroughs on 
this, I think, but I didn't really impart them well to 
everyone.  They seemed to be issues to discuss after the wireframes 
are together, but maybe not.  Let me remember for one second then 
I'll do a quick summary.  Maybe I'll write the ideas up more 
completely in an e-mail later so you don't have to sit here listening 
to me all night. :)
01[22:49] <JayPhilly> Basically, we were looking through the 
PhillyIMC site's drupal backend and marveling at the cool stuff 
drupal can do...
[22:49] <@nicklally> yeah, i don't really have a good sense of what 
it can do, so it would be informative to hear what came out of your meeting
01[22:49] <JayPhilly> We talked about how drupal stores everything 
in a database and the developer gets a lot of flexibility in calling 
up information to appear in certain places on a page...
01[22:50] <JayPhilly> So, looking at the Phillyimc page...
[22:51] <@nicklally> yup
01[22:52] <JayPhilly> What the main page is (as I understand it, 
though I may be way off base) is kind of a series of boxes that are 
named things like "main feature" and "sub features."  kind of like 
the wireframes we're compiling.  All the features are stored in a 
unified database, and they get called up to fit into different boxes 
at different times and in different ways.
[22:52] <@nicklally> ok.
[22:52] <@nicklally> so we're probably able to do all the things 
we're talking about in wireframe discussions. right?
01[22:53] <JayPhilly> Yes, definitely.  (though I could be making 
this whole undersanding of drupal up.)
[22:53] <@nicklally> Ok, that's good to know.
01[22:53] <JayPhilly> Anyway, this applies to us in lots of great ways...
01[22:53] <JayPhilly> For example...
01[22:55] <JayPhilly> Let's say you come to the site looking for 
knowledge about a particular topic, let's say building a solar 
thermal system.  You go to the main page, click through to the 
knowledgebase main page and search for "solar thermal"...
01[22:56] <JayPhilly> What you get is a knowledge base article about 
how to build a solar thermal system.  What you also get, because 
we've told drupal to call up articles all tagged with "solar thermal" 
or that fit somehow into our "renewable energy/solar thermal" taxonomy...
[22:56] <@nicklally> ok, that sounds perfect.
[22:57] <@nicklally> so i have to get running in a minute here.
[22:57] <@nicklally> so, i will make some mock-ups of mutliple 
category displays.
01[22:57] <JayPhilly> is a link to the profiles of all the 
individuals who do solar thermal work, links to all the profiles of 
organizations that do solar thermal work, links to the solar thermal 
news articles, links to the solar thermal wants/needs...
01[22:57] <JayPhilly> (okay, winding down here)
01[22:57] <JayPhilly> One more sec...
[22:58] <@nicklally> ok, sorry to interrupt
01[22:58] <JayPhilly> No problem!  So, basically, my understanding 
is that if we create a layout that allows for some visual consistency....
01[22:59] <JayPhilly> and we train the pages to call up the right 
information and plug it into the right boxes....
01[23:00] <JayPhilly> we can integrate all related information on 
each page.  Meaning, our four main sections would essentially be 
different ways to view the information, but the informatoin would be 
consistent.  So if you want to learn about solar thermal via the news 
articles about that, you could go to that news/category page, but 
you'd still have integrated access to related entries in the 
networking/needs and knowledge categories.  Does that make 
sense?  kind of cool.
[23:01] <@nicklally> yes. and that's how i envision it working. i'm 
glad it seems possible with the current software
01[23:02] <JayPhilly> Me too!  I'll write this all up in an e-mail 
soon and check it through Josh/Dave/Aaron to make sure I'm 
right.  Basically though, I think this is the meat and potatoes of 
what drupal does.
[23:02] <@nicklally> ok, so next step. i will make some new 
wireframes, maybe start sketching things in, make a couple choices 
for people to look at, based on this discussion.
01[23:02] <JayPhilly> Brilliant.  Sounds great.
[23:02] <@nicklally> i might also make a map of how the site could be 
used to find info.
[23:03] <@nicklally> a couple examples to visualize these ideas we've 
been throwing around
[23:03] <@nicklally> and hopefully we can get some people to comment 
on our ideas. josh/aaron/dave are probably good people to ask, eh?
01[23:04] <JayPhilly> Definitely!  One thing we haven't wireframed 
yet, which is something the thing I just wrote brings up, is the way 
a page on a specific topic would look.  Using the above example, if 
someone does call up a knowledge base article on solar thermal, where 
on that page will the boxes with links to the solar thermal 
news/networking/needs sections be.
[23:05] <@nicklally> good point.
[23:05] <@nicklally> it could be very similar to the homepage
[23:05] <@nicklally> since it would be a landing page
01[23:05] <JayPhilly> So we have a vision of the main page now, and 
the four main landing pages, and now the thought goes more 
specifically into what each of the funcational information pages will 
look like.
[23:06] <@nicklally> yes. and we have some questions about navigation 
that we have to think about.
01[23:06] <JayPhilly> I think people will spend some time on the 
main page and the main landing pages, but hopefully will spend a lot 
more time on their own profile page or looking through knowledge base 
entries.  So once we get really cool, we'll have to figure out what 
those pages look like.
[23:07] <@nicklally> agreed
01[23:07] <JayPhilly> Great!  okay, time for me to go too.  I'll 
post this log to the alternatives list before I get to sleep.
[23:07] <@nicklally> ok, great.
01[23:07] <JayPhilly> What do you think your general timeframe may 
be on the category sketches and whatnot?
[23:07] <@nicklally> hmmm....
[23:08] <@nicklally> i should get stuff together this week, but i 
will be out of town.
[23:08] <@nicklally> i think i should just see how it goes
[23:08] <@nicklally> but i'll try to work on it this week.
[23:08] <@nicklally> i'm going to a conference from 
wednesday-saturday, but it's on my own accord and i might have time 
to work then
[23:09] <@nicklally> and it's about art and activism, so maybe i'll 
be extra excited to work on this!
01[23:09] <JayPhilly> Seeing how it goes sounds fine to me.  I'll 
actually be away Thursday through Sunday, back Sunday afternoong.
[23:09] <@nicklally> ok. and maybe we can meet on sunday again? 
pending michael's schedule?
01[23:09] <JayPhilly> Tell all the other artists/activists about 
it!  Maybe someone will want to work with us.
[23:09] <@nicklally> yeah, true.
[23:10] <@nicklally> i think i can get others involve once this 
really starts rolling. i haven't tried yet
01[23:10] <JayPhilly> I'd like to meet Sunday if possible.  I think 
these IRC meetings have been super productive.
[23:10] <@nicklally> yeah, agreed. and sunday works for me.
[23:11] <@nicklally> ok, well good meeting. and we'll talk again on sunday!
01[23:11] <JayPhilly> Again, a great and very thought-provoking 
meeting.  We'll be in touch.
[23:11] <@nicklally> great. goodnight.