[Imc-alternatives] DESIGN: log of May 18 meeting (summary coming)

[Jay]

Hi alternatives,

Here's the raw log of the design/wireframing meeting Nick, Michael 
and I just had on IRC.  I took the task of developing an overarching 
summary of our discussions so everyone knows where we are and how we 
got there.  There has been substantial progress!  Very exciting,

Jay

***

Session Start: Sun May 18 21:02:17 2008
Session Ident: #alternatives
03[21:02] * Now talking in #alternatives
01[21:02] <Jay> Hey Nick.
[21:03] <nicklally> hey
01[21:03] <Jay> I was in touch with Michael earlier and he says 
he'll be here.  So, it's only a matter of time.
[21:03] <nicklally> so i added some new wireframes to crabgrass.
[21:03] <nicklally> isn't he here. "michaelv"
01[21:04] <Jay> Oh yeah!
01[21:04] <Jay> Michael?
01[21:04] <Jay> Nick, I just saw your e-mail about the new 
wireframes.  I'm checking them out right now.
[21:05] <nicklally> ok
[21:05] <@michaelv> here
[21:05] <@michaelv> was eating coconut soup had hands full
[21:05] <nicklally> did you check out all the new wireframes?
01[21:06] <Jay> Wow, look at that conceptual map!
[21:06] <nicklally> ha! i thought it would help. not sure yet, but it 
was kinda fun to make
01[21:08] <Jay> It'll definitely help.  Let me wade through it for 
just a minute.
[21:08] <@michaelv> I just did, looking good, few questions
[21:08] <@michaelv> with the homepage, are we still talking about 
having "more features" in thumbs to left or right of featured article?
[21:08] <@michaelv> with the publish and newswire column, does it 
need to be that wide?
[21:09] <@michaelv> just a few questions, good work nick
[21:09] <nicklally> we can talk about it for sure. it's not in my 
current vision.
[21:10] <nicklally> so, as per my email, my new wireframes took 
elements from jay's wireframes, which i liked, but felt needed a 
little revision.
01[21:10] <Jay> Okay, I think I have it all sorted out.  Thanks, 
Nick!  We're really getting somewhere.  Should we just jump into 
looking at your main page?
[21:11] <nicklally> sure. or we could talk about the differences 
between yours and mine...
[21:11] <@michaelv> so did we decide the thumb nail features idea is out?
[21:11] <nicklally> i don't think anything is decided
[21:11] <nicklally> but i don't think it's very functional, i prefer 
the idea of listing articles below
[21:11] <nicklally> i know jay's wireframes has tabs in place of thumbnails
[21:11] <@michaelv> I disagree, but it is not a big deal
[21:11] <nicklally> so this might be a good place to start discussing
01[21:12] <Jay> "thumb nail features" meaning the top feature from 
each of the topics?  explain?
[21:12] <@michaelv> i think it depends on how we do it
01[21:12] <Jay> (I'm using "topics" rather than "categories")
[21:12] <@michaelv> as per previous discussions, along the lines of 
yahoo, but perhaps different and more functional
[21:12] <@michaelv> click on the other featured thumbnail and it 
moves to featured article
[21:13] <nicklally> my objection to thumbnails w/o text is that they 
are not clear enough, and it should be clear how to retrieve info 
from the site.
[21:13] <nicklally> and it would be contigent on people making good 
thumbnails for their stories.
[21:13] <@michaelv> There could be some text, certainly
[21:13] <@michaelv> no
[21:13] <@michaelv> the main image would be compressed
[21:13] <nicklally> i like this model: 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/default.stm
[21:13] <nicklally> which is how my news is laid out. and 
sub-articles can work with or w/o thumbs
[21:14] <@michaelv> i will look, but I am stuck on this idea, have 
been for every since we started talking about lpimc, but it is not a 
big deal, really
01[21:15] <Jay> Looking.
[21:15] <nicklally> i'm referring to a main article, with two column 
of other featured articles, with images if desired, underneath
[21:16] <@michaelv> imc-alt and lpimc will have distinct differences, 
so my disagreement is not a block, but i do think when done corrent 
it can be functional within the block we have created, as per my 
first wireframe composite
[21:16] <nicklally> i guess my question would be how to fit text in 
that vision.
01[21:17] <Jay> To get clarity, we're talking about the idea of 
having the big two-column block with the top feature be a place where 
you can choose among five or so different features?
[21:17] <@michaelv> I made the first attempt with the wireframe 
suggestion I first sent
01[21:17] <Jay> Rather than breaking out the sevearl top features 
into their own blurbs?
[21:17] <nicklally> really, my vision and yours aren't terribly 
different. mine just gives preference to text and has the articles 
underneath instead of beside
[21:17] <@michaelv> it might need tweeking, but that would depend on 
if we decide to do it
[21:18] <@michaelv> one way would be simply to have roll over text 
with a clear indication that the thumbs are most recently featured
[21:18] <@michaelv> but, lets not get sidetracked
[21:18] <@michaelv> i don't want to hold up the process with my 
personal vision for the main block
[21:19] <nicklally> ok
01[21:19] <Jay> Just clarifying?  Am I talking about the right 
thing?  If so, I agree with Michael and really like the idea of 
having tabs or choices with the top feature, rather than breaking the 
main features out into blocks (on the main page).
[21:20] <nicklally> how do you propose turning the choice of news 
articles into tabs?
[21:20] <nicklally> for instance, a headline says "Microsoft mulls 
fresh Yahoo deal"
[21:20] <nicklally> how do you fit the info there?
[21:21] <@michaelv> i was mainly talking about having the list of 
"most recently featured" be set into tabs each time the next feature 
goes up, right or left, perhaps even below the publish button, and so 
users can simply clickj on the thumb to expand it to the features, 
then read the abstract and decide if they want to read it, etc
[21:22] <@michaelv> but your ideas sounds interesting and I want to hear more
01[21:23] <Jay> Okay, I'm confused.
[21:23] <@michaelv> this goes back to our first meeting, where we 
made points of agreement
[21:24] <nicklally> me too.
[21:24] <@michaelv> we talked about the yahoo like thumbs back then 
for features
[21:24] <nicklally> can you explain the tabs idea you have for the 
featured article box, Jay?
01[21:24] <Jay> Yes.  Give me one second to collect my thoughts....
[21:27] <nicklally> i guess my sketch envisions a similar method to 
yahoo, but without the fancy javascript switching. ie: main articles 
below the featured article. they would probably be headlines with 
images, if desired.
01[21:27] <Jay> I'm picturing the top feature box on the front page 
offering five choices for the top feature, either with tabs (on 
yahoo.com the tabs say featured/entertainment, taking someone to the 
top feature in each of our four main sections (news/network/etc.), or 
just like newsweek.com where there are five choices for the top news feature.
[21:27] <nicklally> i guess i don't like on yahoo that you have to 
click twice to view the article.
[21:28] <@michaelv> i meant inspired but better
01[21:28] <Jay> Maybe we can focus this way...
[21:28] <@michaelv> i'm frustrated right now, so I will mainly listen
[21:29] <nicklally> ok, that makes sense Jay
01[21:29] <Jay> This week I've been thinking of the main page much 
more as a portal page to the rest of the site.  The purpose of that 
page is to lay out our four sections and get people to start exploring.
01[21:29] <Jay> We would present the content with each of the main 
sections being treated more or less with equal weight.
[21:29] <nicklally> which is similar to michael's vision. the 
difference being jay is proposing text links and michael is proposing 
image links. but with the same results. is that right?
01[21:31] <Jay> I think my vision is similar to Michael's.  I'm for 
images too, actually, being primary over text, in that main feature 
block.  let me explain...
[21:31] <nicklally> i guess my vision, currently, is that the home 
page is the main news page AND a portal to all the other pages (as 
per the conceptual map). so my vision gives preference to having 
people visit the site and see what the big things happening in the news are.
01[21:31] <Jay> That's funny, that's what I was thinking two weeks 
ago. :)))))
01[21:32] <Jay> I think I even pushed that idea last week.  Aha, I'm 
very convincing! :)))
[21:32] <nicklally> i like going to a news site and scrolling through 
articles to see what i want to read. not clicking once to see what an 
article is about and then again to actually read it.
[21:32] <nicklally> ha! you conviced me!
01[21:32] <Jay> Nick, I'm confused why there would need to be two clicks.
[21:33] <nicklally> if we use any kind of tab/image selection thing, 
you need to click once to see the article come up in the "featured" 
box, then again to read the entire thing
[21:34] <@michaelv> i don't understand why that is a problem
01[21:34] <Jay> Kind of, though looking at the Yahoo page, the way 
they're laying out the tabs seems to me to be a matter of navigation 
-- they're saying "we have four main sections, here are the top 
articles in those sections at your fingertips."
01[21:35] <Jay> On newsweek.com they're saying
01[21:35] <Jay> ...
[21:35] <nicklally> it's not necessarily a problem. i just like to 
simplify navigation, and my preference as a user us to have quick 
access to review, then read articles
01[21:35] <Jay> "we have six cool top articles.  take your pick" and 
go straight there.
[21:36] <@michaelv> having the expandable feature concept on the 
front page would be complementary to this idea
[21:36] <@michaelv> people could begin be reading the abstract, and 
if they like it, click to expand and read away
[21:36] <nicklally> and i think we can combine our ideas. newsweek, 
for example has both methods. the box with buttons to click and a 
straigh listing of articles underneath. i just wanted to explain my 
reasoning and my preference as a user
[21:36] <@michaelv> me too
01[21:38] <Jay> I don't think we need to do something as 
fancy-schmancy as the newsweek thing with text flying around.  I'm 
thinking something simple like "theroot.com
01[21:38] <Jay> with three basic choices.
[21:38] <nicklally> looking now
01[21:39] <Jay> But the ideological difference between the yahoo 
method and the newsweek method is the question of how we're going to 
use the main page.  If we're thinking PORTAL then we may want to have 
four tab choices with the top news/network/knowledge and needs 
entry.  If the main page is the main news page too we could just have 
five top article choices.
01[21:39] <Jay> Am I explaining myself well?
[21:40] <@michaelv> that's a cool way to do it too
[21:40] <@michaelv> and the yahoo tabs thing, that has also been a 
big consideratino I have had with the main nav area too
[21:40] <nicklally> yeah, ok. so i am currently seeing the home page 
as being the main news page. what about you guys?
[21:40] <@michaelv> agreed
[21:41] <nicklally> so my position on the featured box is: i am ok 
with doing the tab/image selection thing as long as it's accompanied 
by listed articles.
01[21:42] <Jay> I was, not as much any more, but could defintely be 
convinced back. :)  I've been really digging the simplicity of having 
four equal sections, each with its own landing page, with the front 
page offering the top articles and newswire from each section.
[21:42] <@michaelv> actually, this website jay showed us has a 
different approach than I was envisioning, but it could work too
[21:42] <nicklally> the main downsides i see for the tab/image thing 
is 1)it isn't a clear navigation strategy 2) it adds more javascript 
to the page. 3) it will require more active maintenance.
[21:43] <nicklally> did i argue against having the homepage as the 
news page? i can
[21:43] <nicklally> 't remember that discussion.
[21:43] <@michaelv> i think there are other ways to cue people that 
articles featured are from different sections, like with different 
background colors or other graphic appeal that when they go to that 
section page it is reflected in the color/graphic scheme
01[21:43] <Jay> No, I don't think so.  I just remember personally 
being more excited about that idea a couple weeks ago than I am now, 
and pushing it.
[21:43] <nicklally> what did we decide there? i guess even my initial 
wireframes were along those lines.
01[21:44] <Jay> Different colors for different sections sounds like 
a good thing to try.
[21:44] <@michaelv> i think it can be both
[21:44] <nicklally> i think making the main page the news page 
maintains some continuity for switching between a classic indymedia 
site and the new one.
[21:44] <nicklally> yeah, and/or with icons
[21:45] <@michaelv> it could be the main news page, esp with your 
yahoo-like tabs suggetion
01[21:45] <Jay> Nick, I totally agree.
01[21:45] <Jay> How about this....
[21:45] <@michaelv> but still the sections can have their own page sets too
01[21:46] <Jay> Wait, collecting some thoughts....
[21:46] <@michaelv> on the roots website, could be small thumbs 
instead of numbers, if we like that approach.
[21:46] <@michaelv> ok
[21:46] <@michaelv> i'm less frustrated now
[21:47] <nicklally> :)
01[21:47] <Jay> Okay, let's get at this by looking back at the 
differences between the new wireframe main page I suggested and the 
one nick suggested.
01[21:47] <Jay> ...
[21:47] <nicklally> (it will also be interesting to hear from the 
programmers on this issue)
01[21:48] <Jay> I'm calling them up side by side...
[21:48] <nicklally> our main pages are really similar
01[21:48] <Jay> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see just a couple 
differences.  First, nick doesn't have a tab at the top for news....
[21:49] <@michaelv> jay, i have to say I am liking the root approach 
to features, even tighter than what I had imagined
[21:49] <nicklally> correct, that's assuming the home page is the news page.
[21:49] <nicklally> and i think both our methods lend to a little 
confusion on navigation
[21:50] <nicklally> for instance, yours doesn't have a home link. and 
mine doesn't say where to look for news.
01[21:50] <Jay> Second, the only other differene I see is that i 
have several top features as choices in the big "top feature" window 
while you break them out into text below.  Otherwise, I think we're 
pretty much straight on.
[21:50] <@michaelv> i think something like theroot method is slick, 
and I think you are right, we can also have a box below with other featured too
01[21:50] <Jay> Nick, you're right.  There are two reasons why I'm 
thinking we could use a main "news" page that's separate from the home page....
[21:51] <@michaelv> :) I have a thought too, but listening
01[21:51] <Jay> 1) Because on the News page we could go into more 
detail with a lot of the news features than we could on the main 
page, like listing a top feature in each topic if we don't want to do 
that on the main page.  and 2)
01[21:52] <Jay> Just for she sheer simplicity of having four seprate 
but relatively equally balanced sections.  So, the main page would 
offer more in the way of news than in informatoin about the other 
sections (hence giving people some of the indymedia front page feel) 
but the basic structure of the site would value information in each 
of the sections equally.
[21:53] <nicklally> OK, i actually like that.
[21:53] <@michaelv> so the homepage would better synthesize the 
entire solutions/alternatives website, giving visitors, esp new ones, 
a broad brush view of what we have to offer
01[21:53] <Jay> So when you're deep in the site you'd be easily able 
to identify where to go to anchor yourself in our "news" view of 
alternatives, or in the "network," etc.
[21:54] <nicklally> Yeah, I think i can see that working. And the 
news page can have lots of articles and info, which would really push 
the other features too far down if it happened on the front page
[21:54] <@michaelv> and then the sub-areas, like news, network, jays 
list, etc would have pagesets with similar template designs for consistency?
[21:54] <nicklally> Yeah, I think so.
[21:54] <@michaelv> same format, but specific information
01[21:54] <Jay> A broad brush, yeah, but I do agree, thinking about 
it, that it should default to news.  So, for example, the top 
features could all be news features, and the newswire on the right 
column could start as the main "news" newswire, with tab options to 
view the main "knowledge-base" wire, or the main "needs" wire, 
etc.  (am I explaining that clearly?  stop me if I'm not.)
[21:55] <@michaelv> i get it
[21:55] <nicklally> OK, but i think we need to take it easy with the tabs!
01[21:56] <Jay> :)
[21:56] <@michaelv> i think the homepage would be the doorway, and as 
people investigate, esp with your idea of the yahoo-like tabs above 
the featured area too
[21:56] <@michaelv> i think some balance is good
[21:56] <@michaelv> ;)
01[21:57] <Jay> I see two places on the main page with potential 
choices (tabs, numbers, etc.)  The top feature and the newswire 
area.  We don't have to make them fancy java choices.  On the 
indymedia.org page you can choose between the features-wire and the 
open newswire through text links.
[21:57] <@michaelv> there are two different ways to have the main 
horizontal nav menu with sub-horizontal menus: with tabs or text
[21:57] <nicklally> i think we're going to find we'll want to release 
a version without any tabs, because i think you'll start to see that 
it will be a logistical nightmare to keep all that javascript working 
with user-defined content. but we don't have to go into that now.
[21:58] <@michaelv> if we had jay's idea for sections, the main 
horizontal menu could be like lancasteronline.com or thechl.org does it
[21:58] <@michaelv> i say we put it to the coders and get some 
feedback before we move for or against java scripting
[21:59] <@michaelv> it might not be that complicated
01[21:59] <Jay> Or it might. :)
[21:59] <nicklally> i am one of the coders.  ;)
[21:59] <@michaelv> exactly
[21:59] <@michaelv> oh, well, that simplifies it
[21:59] <@michaelv> so, make it work nick
[21:59] <@michaelv> ;P
[21:59] <nicklally> ha!
[21:59] <nicklally> well, i think we can attack that problem far in 
the future (well, maybe not that far)
01[22:00] <Jay> As far as Java, I agree that we should start with as 
little as possible then build up.  So, for example, maybe the idea of 
submenus (ala rhizome.org) should be something left for a deeper version.
01[22:00] <Jay> Though I like it!
[22:00] <nicklally> see, that kind of coding is easier because it's static.
[22:00] <@michaelv> but i do think the main features nav area should 
be java scripting like we have talked about, and the rest of the page 
can have it added as we see fit, besides maybe the newswire column
[22:01] <nicklally> ok, that sounds good
01[22:01] <Jay> Question: indymedia.org isn't using java for the 
switch between featureswire and openwire, is it?
[22:01] <@michaelv> i don't think so
[22:02] <nicklally> nope
[22:02] <@michaelv> i don't think any indymedia sites use java
[22:02] <@michaelv> none that I have seen besides maybe cascading menus
[22:02] <nicklally> and when we use java we'll want to make sure 
everything is accessible w/o the java for people who don't use it or can't
[22:02] <@michaelv> good point
[22:03] <nicklally> so one thing i did add on my sketch is a "browse 
categories" link underneath search
01[22:03] <Jay> So, I like the slickness of java, but the more 
important thing is to offer clear navigation and clear choices.  So 
if we offer text link choices between newswire/knowledge-base wire 
and needs/wire on the right column, I'd be happy with that.
[22:03] <@michaelv> i guess the default for non-java users would be 
to open up the featured in a new page, like most indymedia sites
[22:03] <nicklally> ok, that makes sense. and we can always build up 
from there.
[22:03] <nicklally> add it later.
01[22:04] <Jay> Nick, I like that: "browse categories."  That 
answers a lot of questions we had last week.
[22:04] <@michaelv> so, start out with the look we want, and add more 
code later, so to stay consistent
[22:04] <nicklally> oh, maybe we should holf off on  browse 
categories, i just thought of something...
[22:04] <nicklally> do we need the links to the other wires for the 
right column?
[22:05] <nicklally> or is it redundant since they are linked at the 
top menu and on the bottom boxes?
01[22:05] <Jay> explain "button boxes"
01[22:05] <Jay> oh, "bottom boxes1"
01[22:05] <Jay> Got it.
01[22:05] <Jay> (bad eyes.)
[22:06] <nicklally> i am going to argue that it would be redundant.
[22:06] <nicklally> too redundant, i should say
01[22:07] <Jay> The reason why I like it is because having the 
ability to view a newswire with most recent articles adds to the 
excitement and a feeling of immediacy about the site...
01[22:07] <Jay> it's different than just a navigation tool.
[22:08] <nicklally> what if that newswire section related to the 
section you are in. so in new, it would be news. in knowledge, it 
would be newest knowledge articles, etc, etc
01[22:08] <Jay> Seeing the most recent or most popular news article 
is an exciting thing and will inspire site visitors (I know it 
inspires me) to come back to the site to check in with what's new.
01[22:08] <Jay> Nick, that makes 100% sense for each of those main 
landing pages.
01[22:08] <Jay> Definitely.
[22:09] <nicklally> ok, cool. then that could eliminate the buttons 
in that column.
[22:09] <@michaelv> i agree with that
01[22:09] <Jay> "eliminate the buttons in that column...?"  explain 
just a bit.  are you talking about on the main page?
[22:09] <nicklally> yeah, so you wouldn't call up other newswires 
from the newswire column
[22:10] <nicklally> they would just show up in the proper category pages.
[22:10] <nicklally> does that make sense?
01[22:10] <Jay> I think if you're in the knowledge section you 
should see the knowledge wire, thats' a given.  But the main page, i 
think, should give the opportunity to see what's new in the different sections.
[22:10] <@michaelv> what if we had a page that collected all of the 
various newswires too?
[22:11] <nicklally> yeah, i guess that's what i see the bottom boxes doing.
01[22:11] <Jay> Michael, that's kind of what I'm thinking we could 
offer on the main page in the right column -- the option to see the 
newswire, the knowledgewire, the needswire, or the netwrokwire.  Four 
sections, four newswires, four choices. :)
01[22:11] <Jay> or maybe that's too many choices!
[22:12] <@michaelv> it is also requiring java to flip between them too
[22:12] <nicklally> i guess i just see the top navigation being 
enough to find those newswires. that's what i'm thinking right now, at least
[22:12] <nicklally> and the bottom boxes would link to the section 
with the proper newswire too. it's still all one click away
[22:13] <nicklally> convince me Jay!
01[22:13] <Jay> I'm still not sure what you mean when you say 
"bottom boxes".  could you explain?
[22:13] <@michaelv> he means the different blocks below the main nav area
[22:13] <nicklally> the boxes underneath "more featured articles" 
would feature knowledge/networking articles
01[22:14] <Jay> Ah, I see.  thanks.  Okay, coming up with a very 
convincing argument....
01[22:15] <Jay> I think one of the most exciting things about an 
indymedia site, or a blog for that matter, or most any news-oriented 
site, is feeling that if you click on that site you'll see something 
new, something that's been posted since your last click.  The indy 
open newswire was one of the first sites that allowed for that, 
though a zillion followed.
[22:16] <nicklally> I totally agree 100%.
[22:16] <nicklally> And I think my method maintains that.
[22:17] <nicklally> You see the newswire when you visit the site. 
Then if you're interested in networking, you click on that link and 
see the networking newswire.
01[22:17] <Jay> So, I think that's something we should offer on the 
front page right away.  I guess the difference is in the balance 
between user participation and editorial control.  The "top articles" 
in our big top feature and our bottom boxes will most likely be 
editor-chosen, rather than user chosen, whereas I see the newswires 
as being user-chosen.
01[22:17] <Jay> I'm looking at them as two different kinds of 
content, balancing the editors with the users in an exciting way.
01[22:18] <Jay> (top features = "we choose" newswires = "you choose")
[22:18] <nicklally> True. But, you should be clicking on the 
navigation tab that intests you. Then you get all kinds of info on 
that topic plus the newswire for that topic.
[22:18] <nicklally> I totally agree with everything you're saying Jay
01[22:19] <Jay> Hmm, some background from indy sites in days of 
yore.  When the Germany IMC site came online there were huge 
arguments about the fact that they weren't using an unfilitered 
newswire on their main page.
03[22:19] * davo (davo at a6d346.6817e3.2f2769.c84aac) has joined #alternatives
03[22:19] * ChanServ sets mode: +o davo
[22:20] <nicklally> But I want the newswire on the frontpage. And a 
newswire on every page
[22:20] <nicklally> I'm just arguing about the links to other 
newswires contained inside the right column
01[22:20] <Jay> (ah, okay, stopping history lesson.  maybe I'm 
misunderstanding.) So, what would the newswire be on the front page?
[22:21] <nicklally> news
[22:21] <nicklally> (i think)
[22:21] <nicklally> i suppose it changes things having a home page 
and news page. but i see the newswire being on both
[22:21] <nicklally> then the other main categories having their own wires
01[22:22] <Jay> Aha!  So, the question at hand is not whether or not 
to keep the newswire on the main page, but whether to give the choice 
between viewing the newswire vs. the other "wires" from the other sections.
01[22:22] <Jay> Is that it?
[22:22] <nicklally> Yeah!
01[22:22] <Jay> AHA!
[22:22] <nicklally> Which is why i totally agree with everything 
you've said so far!
01[22:23] <Jay> AHA!
01[22:23] <Jay> So the question gets back to whether we're focusing 
more on the main page being news-heavy or treating each section equally.
[22:24] <nicklally> Yeah, i was talking about not having links to 
other wires accesible from the newswire box. but yeah, we can also 
talk about what should be on the frontpage
[22:24] <nicklally> as an in-between, which i think would be 
effective, we could have mini-wires on the frontpage.
[22:24] <nicklally> ie: 5 newest articles from each wire
[22:25] <nicklally> i guess my main objection to the links being 
there is that you could call up the knowledge wire and have it 
displayed on the news page. that just doesn't seem right!
01[22:25] <Jay> Mini wires sounds like something that could be worth 
trying!  The only reason I was thinking of four tabs/choices is for 
lack of clutter.
01[22:26] <Jay> I was just thinking of those choices being available 
on the front page.  On the news page you'd see the news wire, on the 
knowledge main page you'd see the knowledge wire, etc. with no choices.
[22:26] <nicklally> And, I guess I find it a bit user-unfriendly the 
way it works on the current indymedia site. It's kind of confusing.
[22:27] <nicklally> OK
[22:27] <nicklally> So you'd be open to trying mini-newswires? I 
think that might be nice. Michael?
[22:27] <nicklally> And I do like lack of clutter... but if it's all 
in clear lists, I think it could work.
01[22:28] <Jay> I'd be open to trying mini newswires, 
definitely.  We could see if that makes the front page seem cluttered 
or not.  If not, it seems like the most straightforward of all options.
[22:28] <@michaelv> brb
[22:28] <nicklally> OK, that sounds good. It would be in line with 
giving more equal space to all the categories on the frontpage (or 
more equal, at least). News wouldn't totally dominate that way
01[22:29] <Jay> So in the "bottom boxes" we would have the top 
editor-chosen feature, and in the mini-newswires we'd have the most 
recent (or most popular?) user-submitted article.
01[22:29] <Jay> Right?
[22:29] <nicklally> Yeah, that's how i see it
01[22:29] <Jay> That sounds good.  Michael, have we lulled you to sleep?
01[22:30] <Jay> Maybe!
[22:30] <@michaelv> no, I was away, need to catch up
01[22:30] <Jay> Okay, we'll wait a moment for you to catch up.  let 
us know when to start blabbering again.
[22:31] <nicklally> Well, Jay, one thing i did change on your 
wireframe is moving the taxonomy to the right column for individual articles
01[22:32] <Jay> Seems fine to me.
[22:32] <nicklally> my reasoning is that the image over the other 
column will be hard to maintain, and its size will move that box around
[22:32] <nicklally> otherwise, i really like all the stuff you had on 
that page and maintained it in my sketch
01[22:32] <Jay> Yeah, makes sense.  As long as the info on the right 
column can all appear clearly, I think that's the way to go.
[22:33] <nicklally> OK, cool
[22:33] <nicklally> i also added the "browse categories" which i 
think works to combine everyone's ideas from last week
[22:34] <nicklally> ie: have the categories in the top bar (one pov) 
and have them separate from the main categories (another pov)
01[22:34] <Jay> Explain a bit.
01[22:35] <Jay> When a user clicks "browse categories" where does 
that take him?
[22:35] <nicklally> well, michael argued that categories should be a 
main link. i argued that it is conceptually different than 
"knowledge, news, networking, etc" so it shouldn't be in the header.
01[22:35] <Jay> I agree with that.
[22:35] <nicklally> but i think it is good to have that link easily 
accesible in the top
01[22:36] <Jay> Agree too.  Definitely.
[22:36] <nicklally> and putting it under search allies it with searching
[22:36] <@michaelv> ok caught up
01[22:36] <Jay> Agree three times.  I like that.
[22:36] <@michaelv> was on the phone for a few minutes
01[22:36] <Jay> We're talking about the "browse categories" 
option.  Sounds like a good one.
[22:37] <nicklally> it could go to a page like this: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Contents/Portals
[22:37] <@michaelv> sounds good
01[22:38] <Jay> Yeah, good.
[22:38] <nicklally> Ok, great
[22:38] <nicklally> now, i have an idea that might be controversial. 
we touched on it a little last week.
01[22:38] <Jay> Does either of you like using "topics" rather than 
"categories?"  I think "categories" is kind of clunky, whereas 
"topics" is pretty clear.
01[22:38] <Jay> (before the controversy?)
[22:38] <nicklally> i'm ok with that
01[22:38] <Jay> Michael?
[22:39] <@michaelv> yeah, indybay uses topics, I think
[22:39] <@michaelv> sounds good to me
01[22:39] <Jay> cool.  "topics" rules!  Okay now Nick, lay the 
controversy on us.
[22:40] <nicklally> I think "wants/needs" should be part of 
networking and not its own section (should we call these categories, maybe)
[22:40] <nicklally> I think wants/needs is such an integral part of 
networking that it is confusing to have it separate
[22:40] <nicklally> and that a large portion of networking will 
revolve around wants/needs
[22:41] <@michaelv> well, networking is more complex than that, but I 
agree that there is a networking component to wants/needs
[22:42] <@michaelv> it would make sense to include it in the 
networking aspect, but still provide a mini-feed block on th emain page too
[22:42] <nicklally> yes, i definitely think it should have it's own 
"featured" section, or even a subpage, but that it should be a 
sub-category of Networking
[22:43] <nicklally> and i agree that networking is much more complex 
than that, but i see it as part of that.
01[22:43] <Jay> There's definitely a real overlap.  I guess one 
reason I'm separating them in my mind is because I picture two 
different things when I think of "networking" and 
"wants/needs".  When I envision the main Networking page I envision 
all these happy photos of people and images representing 
organizations, with the main purpose of that page being finding real 
life people and groups.  For the wants/needs I'm picturing something 
more text-based, like craigslist, with a focus on information, not people.
01[22:43] <Jay> So, I've been viewing them as distinct.
[22:43] <nicklally> gotcha
[22:44] <nicklally> what do you think of it being part of networking?
01[22:44] <Jay> I think it's definitely part of networking, that's 
for sure.  But should it be it's own section equal with the 
others...?  Thinking...
[22:44] <@michaelv> i agree that they are interconnected...
[22:45] <nicklally> we could also throw out example of wants/needs 
and networking and think about how Joe User is going to find the info 
and whether certain things would be confusing
[22:45] <@michaelv> but I can also see the need for having a Jay's 
list like aspect that, while tied in to the networking aspect, is also distinct
[22:46] <@michaelv> notice the use of Jay's list, not Craig's list :)
01[22:46] <Jay> Well, this is actually the question.  Does either of 
you conceive of anyone coming to the site specifically to post an 
alternatives-related want or need, or is that something that only 
people who are coming to the site for the purpose of networking will 
ask the site to provide?
[22:46] <@michaelv> i think that it could be both ways
[22:46] <nicklally> Well, if we take Myspace as an example, usually 
you would ask for things from people who you are networked with. At 
least in my experience.
01[22:47] <Jay> If people would conceivably use the site as a 
alternatives-oriented Craigslist (let's give Craig his due!) then I 
think we should have it be it's own equal section.  If not, it could 
really just fold under networking.  Maybe that would be something we 
won't know until people use the site.
[22:47] <@michaelv> new users might stumble upon the site, see the 
wants/needs block, click on it and then realize they can post items too
[22:47] <nicklally> Yeah, this could really go either way
[22:48] <nicklally> Well, how much of this activity would we expect 
to see related to organizing?
[22:48] <@michaelv> i think some would be organizing
[22:48] <@michaelv> and some would be material needs
[22:49] <nicklally> I guess I'm wondering if we think this will be a 
really active aspect of the site, or if it will be used occassionally
01[22:49] <Jay> That's the big question.  I don't know.
[22:49] <@michaelv> like, "I have an old solar panel that still 
works, willing to bargain for a new set of tires"
[22:50] <nicklally> And the fact that it would be text based makes me 
think it could (at least initially) be put as a featured box on the 
networking page. it could even be featured on the frontpage, but i'm 
not sure about it having it's own page
01[22:50] <Jay> I think a lot of the requests would be for 
advice.  But then, as Nick's suggesting, wouldn't people just contact 
others directly?
[22:50] <@michaelv> perhaps it could start out as networking, and 
grow if it takes off
[22:51] <nicklally> And it makes it confusing that we are mixing 
wants/needs on a site with social networking. Because some people 
will surely fill that need by asking people they are networking with. 
Then others might want the more anonymous (and far-reaching) 
craigslist style thing
[22:51] <@michaelv> the wants/needs list would interconnect all 
registered members and groups
[22:51] <nicklally> how?
[22:52] <@michaelv> kind of like how facebook has the newsfeed page set up
[22:52] <@michaelv> just thinking out loud
[22:52] <nicklally> but that's strictly part of networking, since 
only your friends see your posts. or am i misunderstanding?
01[22:53] <Jay> Maybe we could set it up as a potential point of 
growth within Networking and see if people use it.
01[22:53] <Jay> Like, maybe we could emphasize it as part of our 
networking section and if people really do use it we could consider 
"promoting" it to a main section.
[22:53] <@michaelv> well, yes, but I think what jay is saying is that 
there would be a way for users to post wants/needs and contact people 
who posted wants/needs, which definitely sounds like networking
[22:54] <nicklally> Jay--I like that idea.
[22:54] <@michaelv> thechl.org has something on their site called 
"share the love." which I think is similar
01[22:54] <Jay> The question here seems to be more of whether or not 
wants/needs will be a big section equal to the 
News/Konwledge/Networking main sections or whether it will be a 
subsection of Networking.  Either way, we can integrate the 
wants/needs info into content on other pages.
[22:55] <nicklally> I also think it is worth exploring the conceptual 
issue of how people would use it. For instance, would people have the 
option of posting wants/needs only through their own network or they 
could post in a general forum for everyone.
[22:55] <@michaelv> also, what distinguished or separates wants/needs 
from networking is that we could have a section page specifically for 
wants/needs organized the same way as the news page, etc
01[22:55] <Jay> Michael, I think we could actually do that anyway, 
just as a subsection of networking rather than as its own stand-alone section.
[22:56] <@michaelv> wants/needs newswire, wants/needs features, and 
specific newsfeed blocks on wants/needs categories
01[22:56] <Jay> I'd rather have a feature of the site grow because 
people use it than offer something that absolutely no one uses.
[22:56] <@michaelv> yes
[22:56] <nicklally> Yeah, i would like it as a subsection. but i 
think it could also have all the things michael just said
[22:57] <nicklally> it can have it's own landingpage, but it would 
just be underneath the networking page in the hierarchy of pages
[22:57] <@michaelv> it would fit with our idea of consistency
01[22:57] <Jay> So maybe we could consider wants/needs a substantial 
part of the networking area, with all michael suggests, and go down 
to three main stections.  I'm into that.
[22:57] <@michaelv> and people could simply use the publish concept
[22:57] <nicklally> i like it
[22:57] <@michaelv> which would keep things consistent with what we 
have said about separate section pages having individual newswires
[22:58] <@michaelv> perhaps then the homepage newswire would be a 
summation of all the newswires on the site, with icons indicating 
where they are coming from?
[22:58] <nicklally> yeah
[22:59] <nicklally> and titles, i think. but yeah, same idea
[22:59] <@michaelv> clicking on the newswire would bring them to the 
sectional page, network, events, wants/needs, etc
[22:59] <@michaelv> filmforge
[22:59] <nicklally> sure
[22:59] <@michaelv> :)
01[22:59] <Jay> Ah, another way to present the main page 
newswire!  So we now have three: 1) miniwires, 2) tabs to choose 
between the wire from each section, and 3) all new articles jumbled 
together in one wire with icons or colors to indicate where each is from.
[23:00] <nicklally> oh, wait. i take it back.
[23:00] <nicklally> i thought we were talking about mini newswires
[23:00] <nicklally> but you mean #3 as Jay indicated?
[23:00] <@michaelv> i was just meaning the main homepage newswire to the right
[23:01] <@michaelv> but also having the mini-feeds in blocks as you 
suggested below the nav
[23:01] <@michaelv> then the sub page sets would be more specific
[23:01] <nicklally> i think mini newswires with headings, grouped 
into categories is clearer than icons.
[23:02] <@michaelv> i was just meaning that people would begin to 
recognize some sort of color scheme or symbolism for the different 
aspects of the site
[23:02] <nicklally> yeah, i like using colors that way
[23:02] <@michaelv> green for environment, etc
01[23:03] <Jay> I think mini newswires are worth trying first.  Too 
many colors may be confusing, but three main colors, one for each of 
the remaining sections (news/knowledge/networking) makes sense.
[23:03] <@michaelv> that's what I meant, just the main sections
[23:03] <nicklally> i'm not convinced that color differentation is 
necessary. convince me!
[23:04] <nicklally> i could see the mini feedboxes being different 
colors to differentiate them
[23:04] <nicklally> but how much of the color would change between pages?
[23:04] <@michaelv> i think it would do many good things, one of 
which would be telling us what sections people are posting to and 
reading most often
[23:05] <@michaelv> i was thinking the newswire would have different 
color to the posted item, depending on what section it relates to
[23:05] <@michaelv> and the section page would reflect that with the 
same of complementary color scheme somewhere
[23:06] <nicklally> ok, can we think on this idea?
[23:06] <nicklally> i'm not sure i'm ready for the color discussion yet.
[23:06] <@michaelv> that way if people are wondering "is this news or 
networking?" they would quickly begin to realize the colors can be 
associated with that particular section..yeah, definitely
[23:07] <nicklally> i will think about it when i'm browsing other sites.
01[23:07] <Jay> I don't think too much color shifting is necessary, 
but I like the idea of each of the pages having a slight color 
differentiation.  I'm with Nick that this isn't something we need to 
digh through now.  What's next?
[23:07] <nicklally> we could talk about any other changes we'd like 
to see on the wireframes
[23:07] <nicklally> i think, right now, we're pretty much in agreement
[23:07] <@michaelv> i dont mean huge annoying color diffs, more subtle
[23:08] <nicklally> judging by mine and jay's wireframes and 
michael's input. so are there other issues about them?
[23:08] <@michaelv> but the color thang is a down the road item, not 
important at this point
[23:08] <nicklally> agreed. and i'll really put some thought into 
color, despite what my initial reaction says
[23:08] <@michaelv> we have not included issues like events/calendar 
or video/photo galleries in the blocks or above yet
[23:09] <nicklally> almost need an events section, eh?
[23:09] <@michaelv> yeah, I think so
[23:09] <@michaelv> but that too is tied to networking
01[23:09] <Jay> I think most of those features will be things we 
layer onto the networking or news pages.  For example, I see an 
"events" section being something we can offer on the main news page.
[23:09] <nicklally> i picture video/photos being tied in with 
articles and not their own section
[23:10] <@michaelv> well...
[23:10] <nicklally> because they should support some news 
item/article/or idea which would be easy to fit in
[23:10] <@michaelv> we need to consider video and photo sharing
[23:10] <nicklally> And I agree with that jay
01[23:10] <Jay> That's another reason to have a main news page 
separate from the front page.  A main news page will be able to 
feature a lot of stuff that we don't need to have on the front page.
[23:10] <@michaelv> how else can indymedia pull people away from the 
commercial video/photo galleries?
[23:11] <nicklally> well, if you're talking sharing, that could 
easily be part of people's profiles
[23:11] <@michaelv> yes, and drupal has filmforge for video-sharing
[23:11] <nicklally> then they could share the results throughout the 
site or on other sites (if we're going there)
01[23:12] <Jay> I'm all into that, but i don't know if figuring out 
a way for indymedia to yank people away from flickr etx. is really 
part of the mission for this site.  I agree that we could use Drupal 
and its video/photo sharing capabilities.  That will be really groovy.
[23:13] <nicklally> Yeah, video/photo sharing is probably low on our 
list of immediate priorities. Micheal--do you think it could be 
integrated with user profiles or did you have a different vision?
[23:13] <@michaelv> I don't mean so much as pulling them away from 
there, but pulling them into our site(s) as true multi-media 
participatory community sites
01[23:13] <Jay> And, if we do it well, and one day when there are 
150 Indymedia sites using the same setup we're using, there could be 
some really incredible work done to attract people to multi-media 
participatory community photo/video sharing via indymedia.
[23:13] <@michaelv> I really like the you-tube idea, could be part of 
profiles, but I think it would be essential that we include 
video-sharing with the first install.
[23:14] <@michaelv> since filmforge already has done the work, it 
just means coders integrate that into the site, right?
01[23:14] <Jay> Are you talking video-sharing as in giving people 
the chance to embed videos in their pages and posts?  Or something more active?
[23:14] <nicklally> Can we compete with something like 
http://vimeo.com/ initially?
[23:14] <@michaelv> yes, and no, more like downloading like youtube
[23:15] <nicklally> Explain?
[23:15] <@michaelv> yes, that is just like filmforge for drupal
[23:15] <@michaelv> basically
[23:15] <nicklally> Not familiar with it...
[23:16] <nicklally> and the demo site is not working...
[23:17] <@michaelv> http://drupal.org/project/filmforge
[23:17] <@michaelv> yes, not sure why, it was a month ago, but I do 
have a screenshot somewhere
[23:17] <nicklally> well, can you explain how you are proposing to 
integrate it with the site?
[23:19] <@michaelv> we would have "featured videos" somewhere in a 
block on the main page, like a slideshow, and when you click on the 
feartured video thumb it would bring you to a launch youtube-like 
page, but within our template idea
[23:19] <nicklally> and would we be hosting the vids?
[23:19] <@michaelv> also, they could be in the newswire
[23:19] <@michaelv> I would like to think so
01[23:19] <Jay> One thing with doing too much video is that we do 
run into hosting problems.  I'd like to think axxs will be generous, 
but maybe not too generous.
[23:20] <@michaelv> i just don't want us to limit our possibilities
[23:20] <nicklally> and why would it need to have its own section? 
couldn't you post a video under "articles" or something. you could 
even add the topic "video". why a separate feature?
01[23:20] <Jay> I don't see any problem at all withour aggregating 
video content hosted on other sites, though that may not be too 
satisfying compared to our doing it all ourselves.
[23:21] <@michaelv> well, both. people could upload videos and be 
able to embed them from within the site
[23:21] <@michaelv> both in the networking aspect, as well as 
features/newswires
[23:21] <nicklally> ok
[23:22] <nicklally> maybe we should ask the programmers how doable it 
is to host our own videos?
01[23:22] <Jay> I don't think we should limit our possibilities, but 
i also think we should start with taxing our server hosts as little 
as possible.  I love the idea of aggregating the best alternatives 
video from out there on the web though, as a first step.
[23:22] <nicklally> i think it would be nice to have a video 
component, if it's feasible
[23:22] <@michaelv> i think we should do both, like how phillyimc and 
other imcs allow embedding from other video sharing sites, but we 
could also encourage people to use ours, esp activists.
01[23:23] <Jay> I think that would be great, if we have the server 
capacity.  I do remember videos being disabled on tons of IMC sites 
because of hosting problems.
[23:23] <nicklally> do we all agree that this would be good? and that 
we should see if it's possible? because i have little idea.
[23:23] <@michaelv> i just think it is really important, esp if we 
want to be offering people real tangible reasons to use the 
site--networking and video sharing are very popular and a great draw, 
and activists don't have enough of either that are not commercializd 
and therefore less secure
01[23:23] <Jay> I think we can all agree with pushing great 
alternatives videos that have been posted other places.  (Look at 
slate.com.  Usually their main feature is a text-based article, but 
right now it's a video link.  We could do something like that when a 
great video comes along)
[23:24] <@michaelv> i just think back to the origins of indymedia
[23:24] <nicklally> yeah, i think we're all for it. i do know that 
it's massive pressure on a server to do it, so i'd like to hear from 
the techies on this one.
[23:24] <@michaelv> building a news network that is alternative, not 
dependent, on the corporate mainstream media
[23:25] <@michaelv> giving people viable alternatives to the 
commercial and corporate for-profit options
[23:25] <@michaelv> i think this is key to re-vitalizing indymedia to 
compete in the current virtual world
[23:26] <nicklally> well, i don't think it's very central to 
re-vitalizing indymedia (video hosting, at least), but i'm definitely 
not against it.
01[23:26] <Jay> As for hosting our own video sharing, if it's 
possible, it would be a great discussion to have in indymedia in 
general -- it's probably already happening, maybe in the 
video.indymedia.org group?  Or through freespeech tv?  I'm afraid, 
for the alternatievs site, of biting off too much on our own.  But, 
on the other hand, our informational focus is really narrow -- just 
on alternatives -- and we wouldn't have to host soooo much video.  So 
yeah, I think we should bounce this idea to dave and the axxs crew to 
see what the possibilities are.
[23:27] <@michaelv> well, here's a thought
[23:27] <@michaelv> perhaps, but that also seems to be contrary to 
de-centralization
[23:28] <nicklally> i realize the limitations and i'm not disagreeing 
with anything you're saying (except for our priorities)
[23:28] <nicklally> i think we're all in agreement basically
01[23:29] <Jay> I think we're definitely agreeing.
[23:29] <@michaelv> basically
01[23:29] <Jay> Basically is further than most people get!
[23:29] <nicklally> :)
[23:29] <nicklally> Let's do it if it's possible!
[23:29] <@michaelv> :)
[23:29] <nicklally> can we move on?
[23:29] <@michaelv> sounds fair
[23:30] <@michaelv> jay
01[23:30] <Jay> What I think would be really helpful now is for us 
to start replacing our text and box wireframes with some simple 
graphics and dummy text so we can really start to figure out how some 
of these ideas look.
[23:30] <nicklally> yup!
01[23:30] <Jay> Yup Michael?
[23:30] <nicklally> that's the next step!
[23:30] <@michaelv> nm, will ask later
[23:30] <@michaelv> off topic
01[23:31] <Jay> no problem.  Later.
01[23:31] <Jay> So Nick, what do you think about throwing some cheap 
graphics in the mix and seeing how some of this stuff looks?
[23:31] <nicklally> how should we proceed with the designing? do you 
two want to be involved in the process?
[23:31] <nicklally> i am happy to just start designing
[23:31] <nicklally> i don't make "cheap" graphics, jay.
01[23:32] <Jay> :))))
[23:32] <nicklally> ;)
01[23:32] <Jay> Personally, i'm really bad at making my own graphics 
(meaning, i can't do it), but I'm great at criticizing other people's 
graphics. :)
[23:33] <nicklally> ok. i'm sure we will have lengthy discussions 
once designs start getting produced!
[23:33] <nicklally> michael?
[23:33] <@michaelv> i am good, but really busy these days, too many 
projects stacked
01[23:33] <Jay> Seriously, I know what I like when I see it and have 
proven pretty good at offering feedback.  So yeah, I'd like to be 
part of that.  For the moment though, for our wireframing purposes, I 
don't think we have to come up with anything perfect, just something 
that gives us a sense of the layout.
[23:34] <@michaelv> I can do a part of the layout, if needed
[23:34] <@michaelv> like newswire, or a block, etc
[23:34] <nicklally> well, i'm happy to start and i invite people to 
participate in whatever way you feel you'd like
[23:35] <@michaelv> how about you get it started, and if you run out 
of time, ideas, etc let us know which areas and we can contribute as we can?
01[23:35] <Jay> I'd say start.  The thing I'm most interested in 
right now is seeing how our wireframe ideas will play out when there 
are graphics in there, any graphics.
[23:35] <nicklally> ok, sounds good
01[23:36] <Jay> We do have alternatives.joshmarcus.com to play 
with.  That's the PhillyIMC drupal code set up with our own 
alternatives IMC databse.
[23:36] <nicklally> yeah, that's right. but for the initial designs, 
i like to do them offline
[23:36] <nicklally> w/o code
01[23:36] <Jay> That sounds reasonable.
01[23:37] <Jay> Looking at our "name game" discussion, we seem to 
have come to two likely choices: "alternatives" and "solutions."  so, 
if you're making logos, maybe think of both.
[23:38] <nicklally> ok. i'm voting "alternative", btw!
01[23:38] <Jay> We should be coming to a decision within a couple 
weeks, if the timeframe I proposed holds.
[23:38] <nicklally> great
01[23:38] <Jay> I'm leaning toward "solutions," though I've been 
calling this thing "alternatives" for years and I'd have a hard time 
making the break.
01[23:38] <Jay> But we'll see.  it will be quite a discussion.
[23:38] <@michaelv> i like solutions imc too
[23:39] <nicklally> yeah, i was going to write my reasoning for 
alternatives, but that's way off topic
[23:39] <nicklally> i'll leave it to the discussion
[23:39] <@michaelv> but for the fact "alternatives" has a name brand
01[23:39] <Jay> So Nick, what do you think a timeframe would 
be?  What would you reasonably be able to get to by next week?
[23:39] <nicklally> geez, i dunno
[23:40] <nicklally> i can start and see how it goes
[23:40] <nicklally> maybe i can have something rough for the 
frontpage next week?
01[23:41] <Jay> That would be great.  I don't know about you two, 
but I'm free next Sunday at this same time.
[23:41] <nicklally> i believe i am too
[23:41] <nicklally> oh, actually
[23:41] <nicklally> someone's arriving from out of town. i should find out when
[23:42] <nicklally> i'll email her now and find out and get back to you.
[23:42] <@michaelv> um.....
01[23:42] <Jay> No problem.  So, let's see what Nick is able to come 
up with by next week.  In the meantime, is there anything else we 
want to talk about?  Anything else we have to hammer out before we 
proceed with a rough rough draft of the front page?
[23:42] <@michaelv> oh, I should be ok
[23:43] <@michaelv> r we finished for tonight?
[23:43] <nicklally> i don't have any more questions/concerns.
[23:43] <@michaelv> cool
01[23:43] <Jay> I think so.  We seem to have just clarified a few 
things tonight that were lingering.  Just to summarize...
01[23:43] <Jay> We're going down to three sections: news/knowledge/network.
[23:44] <nicklally> (and home)
[23:44] <@michaelv> events?
[23:44] <@michaelv> or is that network?
[23:44] <nicklally> think we decide it would be in news or network, for now
01[23:45] <Jay> And home.  Events will be part of either news or 
network, but not a main section.  We're going to start with 
wants/needs as a subsection of networking and see if it grows. 
(though we'll fully integrate that content throughout the site).
01[23:45] <Jay> Maybe i should number these 1) three sections, 2) 
needs becomes subsection of network, 3)
01[23:45] <Jay> we're changinng "categories" to "topics", 4)
01[23:45] <Jay> We're going to try mini-newswires on the right 
column of the front page to see how it looks, 5)
[23:46] <@michaelv> i think calendar should be part of network, 
actually, but that can be discussed more next time
01[23:46] <Jay> We're goig to try some kind of tabs/options for the 
top feature in the big two-column "top feature" box on the main page, 
with the caveat that we have text options too (right Nick?), 6)
[23:47] <nicklally> yeah, sounds right
[23:47] <@michaelv> yep
01[23:47] <Jay> The front page will have a lot of news but there 
will also be a main news page that's separate, 7)
01[23:48] <Jay> We'll put "browse topics" under Search and have a 
Topics portal page, 8)
01[23:48] <Jay> We'll think about video sharing, using colors to 
indicate different sections, etc, as we're going along, 9)
01[23:49] <Jay> Nick will start with rough graphics for the front 
page by next week and we'll see what happens.  Did I miss anything?
[23:49] <nicklally> That was a great summary
[23:49] <@michaelv> wow
[23:49] <nicklally> someone's paying attention!
01[23:49] <Jay> !
[23:50] <@michaelv> can you put that in the meeting notes wiki on crabgrass?
[23:50] <nicklally> i can put it up, i have it open.
[23:50] <@michaelv> ok, kewl, I need to get to bed, jay, one Q
[23:51] <@michaelv> did you get the chance to read up on Riane Eisler?
01[23:51] <Jay> Great.  So I'll post the log to the alternatives 
list.  I'll also try to summarize where our discussion has taken 
us.  I can post the log right away but I may need a day or two to 
develop a summary of exactly where we are and how we got there.
01[23:51] <Jay> Michael.  Nope!  I didn't get a chance.  I will this week.
[23:51] <@michaelv> ok, well, i get up early so i must get to bed
[23:51] <nicklally> so jay--i'll post your summary notes, and then 
you'll do a big overarching, mutli-meeting summary later?
[23:52] <nicklally> is that right?
01[23:52] <Jay> Yup.
[23:52] <nicklally> great
01[23:52] <Jay> By mid-week, i hope.
[23:52] <@michaelv> i will keep working on my first alternatives article
01[23:52] <Jay> Some content!
01[23:52] <Jay> Okay, I have to go.  Let me see if the log worked first....