[IMC-US] site redesign?

[john duda]

On Tue, Dec 26, 2006 at 10:54:02AM -0800, Amy L. Dalton wrote:

> >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

ok, got it.  seems useful, although i'd prefer to see inactive topics
still browsable on the site rather than hidden.
 
> >
> >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.
> >

> 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 guess what i was thinking is that some things are overkill for a
full topic (say a single day of action with a few events in a couple
of cities, or a really important local event that's playing out over a
couple of weeks with regular and intermittent updates from a local imc
or two) on a related note, i wonder if it would be useful to be able
to use the "parent : select" mechanism already in mir to add updates
to an article...kind of like a mini-topic, but one that behaved more
like translations do in mir, with an original article, and a list of
auto-generated additions to it, each of which is an article...

if, on the other hand, there was a full topic that needed
highlighting, with lots of updates syndicating in from all over the
network, then you could just make a "ongoing feature" that laid out
the basics and linked to the topic page....

> 
> 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?

i might could try and get really fancy with this stuff (like if you
mouse over the short summary, the full summary pops up/fades in)...

> >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.

i'll have a peek at their code and see how this is done....
 
-john


-- 

this is where my public key can be found:
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 03817826
Key fingerprint = 6C11 8D70 2ADE EFA9 498D  72CB 77EA 391A 0381 7826