[imc-scotland-discussion] flaws with Drupal

[Jon]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Hi Ulla,

Thanks for your comments - i just wanted to respond to some of them.

> Problems with Indymedia Scotland on Drupal at the moment:
> A) Participation does not seem to be encouraged
> 	1.) Publish form
> - is not inviting enough. 

I actually think that the form is easier to use: many people had
complained to me that the form was too complicated. I was intimidated by
the publish form when i started using the website 4 years ago, and i
think this one is less complicated, and easier to use.

> - there are no fields/boxes for author, email address, website address/URL, 	

There was a decision to not allow "named anonymous" users, to enourage
people to log in. But as a logged in user there is no box to add your
name, since it is redundant since you have logged in already.

Email addresses, website urls: they can easily be added using the
wysiwyg text editor. people are already regularly adding them actually.

>    organisation, no creative commons/ copyright/public domain choice or
>    information, difficulties to upload several pictures/files at once, no URL 

The creative commons stuff is symbolic anyway - we do not have the
resources to sue for copyright/left infringement. I dont really miss it,
and it makes the publish form more intimidating for new users I think.

> - box for article related story

again, is a box really needed? I feel that the new wysiwyg publish form
is much more flexible and easier to use: links to related articles can
just be easily added.

> - there is no separate box for summary and body – encourages people not to 
> post content/elaborate on reporting

Im not sure why you think this is true.

> - no mission statement nor editorial guidelines nor POU reference 

the editorial guidelines are the same, and on the site. accessible here:
http://scotland.indymedia.org/?q=node/3

> - spam filter?/CAPTCHA?

there is one, but only for users who are not logged in.

> - no audio files nor video files accepted?!!!

i agree that this needs to be added. I understand that there will be a
flash video module added soon, so videos will be embedded in articles.
which will be groovy!

> - (also in conjunction editorial interface: no easy backdating of articles – 
> making archiving and carrying over of old 2001-2003 content more difficult)
> - images can not be placed where wanted by author, as well as thumbnail choice 
> and location limited

I think that the image insertion is actually easier to use, and less
problematic than before. when it was #image_1# etc they almost
invariably didnt work.

> 
> 2.)Comments
> - comment box/field should be directly under article, not 2 clicks away
> - comments should be fully displayed directly under article, not three clicks 
> away
> - add a comment: no field/box for author name, article and other comments not
> - viewable whilst making comment of your own – difficult to refer to other 
> comments or text or respond, difficulty of enabling discussions
> - comment not fully viewable even if clicked on “view comment” -several clicks 
> away. too

I agree that the comments thing needs some work, and it is indeed a work
in progress. They will hopefully be threaded comments soon to make
discussions even easier than before. This would merit some discussion in
the meetings to decide what we want, and how to code it.

> B) Moderation/Editorial
> 
> 1.) Newswire:
> - local/elsewhere

the elsewhere was decided against: it was decided in a meeting that
keeping the elsewhere newswire just so 'content that was not very good'
could go there was a poor reason for having it - poor content should be
hidden.

And as for the decent articles that ended up there - well it was felt
that they ought not to be relegated to a different newswire that was
less prominent.

> - no topic filter/navigation

there is a topic filter

>   (–housing/globalisation/environment/repression/protest activity...)

this filter exists also

> - no media filter/navigation (– pics/audio/video/text/print)

this did not exist in the past, to my knowledge.

> - no location filter/navigation (– local/elsewhere or 
> Edinburgh/Glasgow/Faslane/Talamh/Aberdeen/Stirling/...)

there was no location filter in the past either. But this could
potentially be added, might be a nice feature.

> - no plain media contributions (?)
> - no easy accessible archive
> 
> and so on, haven't had time yet to evaluate other parts of website apart from 
> its greyness.

I think we actually have the same colour scheme as the previous DADA
site - grey red and black! :) I feel that the site is has a more serious
and less 'activisty' look now than it was before: the banner used to
have a person wearing a gas mask, playing the bagpipes.

> As on Mike's take that 
> ">>Indymedia Scotland is in a stronger and more
>>> positive situation than for a long time" ,
>  it depends on the evaluation criteria   - if the collective is concerned and 
> the amount of Indymedia Scotland members putting in regular and reliable 
> committment, than that is true, 
> if it would mean hits/read per article than we are in the worst position now 
> than ever - the strongest we were as a subsection on indy uk where we usually 
> had many more hits per day per newswire article. (even before rss feeds 
> became popular.)
> And more  when we had the millions hits per day in november 2003 on Indy UK
> during anti-Bush demonstrations/FTAA/Bolivia presidential crisis and the 
> three millions hits per day during the G8 2005. 

I think you greatly over estimate how many people were using the site
before the changeover. There are no statistics available for the past
few years, so i dont know how you can say that usage is lower.

My own opinion is that there has been no change in the amount of use in
the last few months, although it was pretty dead and unused before Tom,
Me, CH and Sam started actively using the site. My guess was that about
a couple of hundred people were using the site, and this was confirmed
by the little 'reads' counter i think.

> Furthermore the broadness of contributed content has declined.

I strongly disagree! there is content posted by Save Our Old Town, and a
person from a village outside of glasgow has now written two articles
about his alienated town. for example:
http://scotland.indymedia.org/node/10211
There are anti-scientology articles, there is an article on grangemouth,
a couple of articles on the Go Ape! development.

You have some valid criticisms and suggestions Ulla, i just wish you had
been less confrontational, and come to meetings or tested the site
before it went live. We did have three open meetings where the website
was discussed before it went live.

You are always most welcome to come to the indymedia meetings.

Respectfully,

Jon
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFIIG0wUTICvIczBBARAk20AKDLR67KZlSIs6kZrjpzHBNCcjP80wCg3oOe
GXOL3E0uw58YIozlmPh2vik=
=Ou3C
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----