[IMC-US] site redesign?

[Amy L. Dalton]

>>3) ability to hide topics and have these show up in a third section, 
>>where only the admins see it.
> 
> i'm not seeing the intent of the "hidden topic" - could you explain?

portland uses it to build topics -- so when i helped to build the one in 
immigrants rights, we had it in this section for while while we 
"populated" it with stories.

i also think it could be relevant for older campaigns that really are so 
far back its not relevant anymore, but might at times be helpful to link 
to in building a feature -- for example, the taco bell truth tour from a 
few years ago it might be good to be able to link to that page if we 
were writing a feature on imakolee's plans for next year, or on the 
changes in the labor movement in general... but to prioritize allowing 
people to navigate to it as an active "topic" doesn't seem to be a good 
use of space, and i think communicates to readers/users that we're "behind."

>>in terms of the "ongoing coverage" boxes -- these would be like the 
>>"special coverage" links now in the top left corner, right?
> 
> 
> no, what i was thinking is that there would be a new article type,
> "ongoing feature", and you'd see the article sumamry and photo for the
> two most recent ongoing features there.  visually, i'm thinking of
> something that looks like something in between the "resource" boxes on
> phillyimc.org and the indypendent box on nyc.indymedia.org.
> 
> so maybe this helps to address the issue of how many features you see
> up top, because the "ongoing coverage" box would also in a sense be a
> feature...

i see. if i'm understanding you, then, in some cases these might 
effectively replace the campaign-specific topic page. i guess the 
determining question is how much participatory posts do we want to allow 
to inform coverage. if you set a page up on may day 2007 as an "ongoing 
feature," you'd have to hand code any additions. however, if you set it 
up as a topic, people could post to the newswire and check may day 2007, 
and this would allow them to participate in the coverage.

> I really like that you get to see a paragraph of text and sometimes
> even an image here...when i look at the local features wire on
> www.indy, which has just headlines and orginating local imc, i find it
> much less useful than the imc-us local wire, which i can skim like a
> newspaper.  often times, the local headline doesn't give enough
> context to figure out what the story is about.  examples from the
> current syndicated features:
> 
> * Remember Those Who Died on the Streets
> * And So This Is Christmas
> * Ninth Circuit Reverses Contempt Order for Winstead
> * Hands Off Oaxaca  (only clear its a solidarity action from the summary)

i agree this is too short but i think what's allowed for now -- 
sometimes four or five paragraphs -- is too long. maybe something in 
between?

>>in terms of making room for more features without stretching the page 
>>too long: i really liked how philly has the top feature bigger, and then 
>>after they move down they become smaller -- both the picture becomes a 
>>thumbnail and the abstract text gets somehow automatically shortened to 
>>one sentence. 
> 
> 
> i definitely like the way this looks, i wonder how much manual editing
> they do to get the right one sentence description....

i am not certain, but i think they have it automated. once i added a 
link to a story that had "moved down" and the abstract still read in 
full. they might have a separate static page where that code draws from 
though that they do update manually.

>>>concerning the banners: are the old ones still in the rotation too? or
>>>were they all taken out? I liked the old ones and was hoping they could
>>>all be within the rotation
> 
> 
> right now they're out - some people were adamant that they not go up
> till the tilde got fixed.

someone had volunteered to work on this, but i can't recall who.

amy