You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@uima.apache.org by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ri...@gmail.com> on 2013/08/31 23:15:12 UTC
Questions on the organization of the UIMA website
Hi,
uimaFIT and Ruta are both officially part of the UIMA sandbox - at least in SVN.
On the website, Ruta has been added on the left navigation menu on the same level as
Annotators, Tools & Servers, etc. It is also listed in the Sandbox section.
I have added uimaFIT to the left navigation menu as well now. Contrary to other
sandbox components, both uimaFIT and Ruta have rather large "project" pages.
Also, Ruta is listed as a separate download in the downloads section. I've added
uimaFIT there as well now.
I'm not sure where this is going, but it's probably something we should discuss.
Should uimaFIT and Ruta be removed from the navigation bar and just end up on the
sandbox page?
Actually, looking at the nav section, there's loads of developer
information, but the stuff users are interested in, e.g. components and tools
is comparatively underrepresented/small. The "Annotators" and "Addons & Sandbox"
links basically link to the same place, although being two different items in the
navigation. Similarly, some things are listed under "tools" and again under "addons".
Should there be something like "featured" sub-projects?
How are downloads for sandbox projects handled when they get their own release
cycle? As separate downloads on the downloads page (as now) or somehow different?
And of course… is the uimaFIT page ok? (http://uima.apache.org/uimafit.html)
I'll hold off the release announcement mail until I get some feedback on these
questions.
Cheers,
-- Richard
Re: uimaFIT on the website
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ri...@gmail.com>.
Nope. But I also do not have screenshots on the uimaFIT page.
-- Richard
Am 03.09.2013 um 13:33 schrieb Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>:
> On 03.09.2013 13:29, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> I still have the issue with the Ruta page, I still don't know why.
>> Somehow the page doesn't work optimally with Safari on OS X
>> (tested also on the Mac of a colleague).
>
> And you do not have the problems with your uimaFit page?
>
> Peter
>
>> -- Richard
>>
>> Am 03.09.2013 um 12:51 schrieb Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>:
>>
>>> btw, I still have an open issue that the ruta page is somehow broken in
>>> some environments. Richard, did you observe any problems with the uima
>>> FIT page, and do you still have problems with the ruta page? Do you know
>>> of any differences?
>>>
>>> Peter
>>>
>>>
>>> On 03.09.2013 10:35, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the things that were quick to fix
>>>> and leave the larger changes for later :)
>>>>
>>>> @Peter: I noticed btw. that the Ruta documentation is also not linked
>>>> from the documentation page.
>>>>
>>>> -- Richard
>
Re: uimaFIT on the website
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 03.09.2013 13:29, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> I still have the issue with the Ruta page, I still don't know why.
> Somehow the page doesn't work optimally with Safari on OS X
> (tested also on the Mac of a colleague).
And you do not have the problems with your uimaFit page?
Peter
> -- Richard
>
> Am 03.09.2013 um 12:51 schrieb Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>:
>
>> btw, I still have an open issue that the ruta page is somehow broken in
>> some environments. Richard, did you observe any problems with the uima
>> FIT page, and do you still have problems with the ruta page? Do you know
>> of any differences?
>>
>> Peter
>>
>>
>> On 03.09.2013 10:35, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the things that were quick to fix
>>> and leave the larger changes for later :)
>>>
>>> @Peter: I noticed btw. that the Ruta documentation is also not linked
>>> from the documentation page.
>>>
>>> -- Richard
Re: uimaFIT on the website
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ri...@gmail.com>.
I still have the issue with the Ruta page, I still don't know why.
Somehow the page doesn't work optimally with Safari on OS X
(tested also on the Mac of a colleague).
-- Richard
Am 03.09.2013 um 12:51 schrieb Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>:
> btw, I still have an open issue that the ruta page is somehow broken in
> some environments. Richard, did you observe any problems with the uima
> FIT page, and do you still have problems with the ruta page? Do you know
> of any differences?
>
> Peter
>
>
> On 03.09.2013 10:35, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the things that were quick to fix
>> and leave the larger changes for later :)
>>
>> @Peter: I noticed btw. that the Ruta documentation is also not linked
>> from the documentation page.
>>
>> -- Richard
Re: uimaFIT on the website
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
btw, I still have an open issue that the ruta page is somehow broken in
some environments. Richard, did you observe any problems with the uima
FIT page, and do you still have problems with the ruta page? Do you know
of any differences?
Peter
On 03.09.2013 10:35, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the things that were quick to fix
> and leave the larger changes for later :)
>
> @Peter: I noticed btw. that the Ruta documentation is also not linked
> from the documentation page.
>
> -- Richard
>
> Am 03.09.2013 um 07:03 schrieb Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>:
>
>> I had a look and it looks basically fine to me.
>>
>> Here are a couple thoughts I had when reading the main uimaFIT website.
>>
>> 1) I think it would be good to post the docbook and apiDocs documentation for
>> uimaFIT on the website. (You should be able to add the .../d/uimaFIT etc
>> docs to the the existing docs/d/... spot).
>>
>> Then you could link to this from 2 places: one is the uimaFIT page, and the
>> other could be the Documentation page. The idea would be to have a new person
>> landing on uimaFIT page, reading it, and wanting to do the "next steps" to learn
>> more, to have somewhere to click.
>>
>> 2) We should consider updating the main UIMA website page, add uimaFIT (and
>> Ruta) to the picture, and say a few words with hyperlinks about these projects.
>>
>> One more minor thing - the convention for the (TM) trademark symbol is to use it
>> once, the first time a trademarked thing appears. Repetition of this beyond
>> that starts to make the doc look cluttered with these things. In this case, I
>> think the first use of Apache UIMA and the first use of Apache uimaFIT (only)
>> would be TM'd.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. Cheers. -Marshall
>>
>>
>> On 8/31/2013 5:15 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> uimaFIT and Ruta are both officially part of the UIMA sandbox - at least in SVN.
>>>
>>> On the website, Ruta has been added on the left navigation menu on the same level as
>>> Annotators, Tools & Servers, etc. It is also listed in the Sandbox section.
>>>
>>> I have added uimaFIT to the left navigation menu as well now. Contrary to other
>>> sandbox components, both uimaFIT and Ruta have rather large "project" pages.
>>>
>>> Also, Ruta is listed as a separate download in the downloads section. I've added
>>> uimaFIT there as well now.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where this is going, but it's probably something we should discuss.
>>>
>>> Should uimaFIT and Ruta be removed from the navigation bar and just end up on the
>>> sandbox page?
>>>
>>> Actually, looking at the nav section, there's loads of developer
>>> information, but the stuff users are interested in, e.g. components and tools
>>> is comparatively underrepresented/small. The "Annotators" and "Addons & Sandbox"
>>> links basically link to the same place, although being two different items in the
>>> navigation. Similarly, some things are listed under "tools" and again under "addons".
>>>
>>> Should there be something like "featured" sub-projects?
>>>
>>> How are downloads for sandbox projects handled when they get their own release
>>> cycle? As separate downloads on the downloads page (as now) or somehow different?
>>>
>>> And of course… is the uimaFIT page ok? (http://uima.apache.org/uimafit.html)
>>>
>>> I'll hold off the release announcement mail until I get some feedback on these
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -- Richard
Re: uimaFIT on the website
Posted by Peter Klügl <pk...@uni-wuerzburg.de>.
On 03.09.2013 10:35, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the things that were quick to fix
> and leave the larger changes for later :)
>
> @Peter: I noticed btw. that the Ruta documentation is also not linked
> from the documentation page.
yes, I think I will change that with the next release.
Peter
>
> -- Richard
>
> Am 03.09.2013 um 07:03 schrieb Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>:
>
>> I had a look and it looks basically fine to me.
>>
>> Here are a couple thoughts I had when reading the main uimaFIT website.
>>
>> 1) I think it would be good to post the docbook and apiDocs documentation for
>> uimaFIT on the website. (You should be able to add the .../d/uimaFIT etc
>> docs to the the existing docs/d/... spot).
>>
>> Then you could link to this from 2 places: one is the uimaFIT page, and the
>> other could be the Documentation page. The idea would be to have a new person
>> landing on uimaFIT page, reading it, and wanting to do the "next steps" to learn
>> more, to have somewhere to click.
>>
>> 2) We should consider updating the main UIMA website page, add uimaFIT (and
>> Ruta) to the picture, and say a few words with hyperlinks about these projects.
>>
>> One more minor thing - the convention for the (TM) trademark symbol is to use it
>> once, the first time a trademarked thing appears. Repetition of this beyond
>> that starts to make the doc look cluttered with these things. In this case, I
>> think the first use of Apache UIMA and the first use of Apache uimaFIT (only)
>> would be TM'd.
>>
>> Just my 2 cents. Cheers. -Marshall
>>
>>
>> On 8/31/2013 5:15 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> uimaFIT and Ruta are both officially part of the UIMA sandbox - at least in SVN.
>>>
>>> On the website, Ruta has been added on the left navigation menu on the same level as
>>> Annotators, Tools & Servers, etc. It is also listed in the Sandbox section.
>>>
>>> I have added uimaFIT to the left navigation menu as well now. Contrary to other
>>> sandbox components, both uimaFIT and Ruta have rather large "project" pages.
>>>
>>> Also, Ruta is listed as a separate download in the downloads section. I've added
>>> uimaFIT there as well now.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure where this is going, but it's probably something we should discuss.
>>>
>>> Should uimaFIT and Ruta be removed from the navigation bar and just end up on the
>>> sandbox page?
>>>
>>> Actually, looking at the nav section, there's loads of developer
>>> information, but the stuff users are interested in, e.g. components and tools
>>> is comparatively underrepresented/small. The "Annotators" and "Addons & Sandbox"
>>> links basically link to the same place, although being two different items in the
>>> navigation. Similarly, some things are listed under "tools" and again under "addons".
>>>
>>> Should there be something like "featured" sub-projects?
>>>
>>> How are downloads for sandbox projects handled when they get their own release
>>> cycle? As separate downloads on the downloads page (as now) or somehow different?
>>>
>>> And of course… is the uimaFIT page ok? (http://uima.apache.org/uimafit.html)
>>>
>>> I'll hold off the release announcement mail until I get some feedback on these
>>> questions.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> -- Richard
Re: uimaFIT on the website
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ri...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the feedback. I fixed the things that were quick to fix
and leave the larger changes for later :)
@Peter: I noticed btw. that the Ruta documentation is also not linked
from the documentation page.
-- Richard
Am 03.09.2013 um 07:03 schrieb Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>:
> I had a look and it looks basically fine to me.
>
> Here are a couple thoughts I had when reading the main uimaFIT website.
>
> 1) I think it would be good to post the docbook and apiDocs documentation for
> uimaFIT on the website. (You should be able to add the .../d/uimaFIT etc
> docs to the the existing docs/d/... spot).
>
> Then you could link to this from 2 places: one is the uimaFIT page, and the
> other could be the Documentation page. The idea would be to have a new person
> landing on uimaFIT page, reading it, and wanting to do the "next steps" to learn
> more, to have somewhere to click.
>
> 2) We should consider updating the main UIMA website page, add uimaFIT (and
> Ruta) to the picture, and say a few words with hyperlinks about these projects.
>
> One more minor thing - the convention for the (TM) trademark symbol is to use it
> once, the first time a trademarked thing appears. Repetition of this beyond
> that starts to make the doc look cluttered with these things. In this case, I
> think the first use of Apache UIMA and the first use of Apache uimaFIT (only)
> would be TM'd.
>
> Just my 2 cents. Cheers. -Marshall
>
>
> On 8/31/2013 5:15 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> uimaFIT and Ruta are both officially part of the UIMA sandbox - at least in SVN.
>>
>> On the website, Ruta has been added on the left navigation menu on the same level as
>> Annotators, Tools & Servers, etc. It is also listed in the Sandbox section.
>>
>> I have added uimaFIT to the left navigation menu as well now. Contrary to other
>> sandbox components, both uimaFIT and Ruta have rather large "project" pages.
>>
>> Also, Ruta is listed as a separate download in the downloads section. I've added
>> uimaFIT there as well now.
>>
>> I'm not sure where this is going, but it's probably something we should discuss.
>>
>> Should uimaFIT and Ruta be removed from the navigation bar and just end up on the
>> sandbox page?
>>
>> Actually, looking at the nav section, there's loads of developer
>> information, but the stuff users are interested in, e.g. components and tools
>> is comparatively underrepresented/small. The "Annotators" and "Addons & Sandbox"
>> links basically link to the same place, although being two different items in the
>> navigation. Similarly, some things are listed under "tools" and again under "addons".
>>
>> Should there be something like "featured" sub-projects?
>>
>> How are downloads for sandbox projects handled when they get their own release
>> cycle? As separate downloads on the downloads page (as now) or somehow different?
>>
>> And of course… is the uimaFIT page ok? (http://uima.apache.org/uimafit.html)
>>
>> I'll hold off the release announcement mail until I get some feedback on these
>> questions.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> -- Richard
>
uimaFIT on the website
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
I had a look and it looks basically fine to me.
Here are a couple thoughts I had when reading the main uimaFIT website.
1) I think it would be good to post the docbook and apiDocs documentation for
uimaFIT on the website. (You should be able to add the .../d/uimaFIT etc
docs to the the existing docs/d/... spot).
Then you could link to this from 2 places: one is the uimaFIT page, and the
other could be the Documentation page. The idea would be to have a new person
landing on uimaFIT page, reading it, and wanting to do the "next steps" to learn
more, to have somewhere to click.
2) We should consider updating the main UIMA website page, add uimaFIT (and
Ruta) to the picture, and say a few words with hyperlinks about these projects.
One more minor thing - the convention for the (TM) trademark symbol is to use it
once, the first time a trademarked thing appears. Repetition of this beyond
that starts to make the doc look cluttered with these things. In this case, I
think the first use of Apache UIMA and the first use of Apache uimaFIT (only)
would be TM'd.
Just my 2 cents. Cheers. -Marshall
On 8/31/2013 5:15 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> uimaFIT and Ruta are both officially part of the UIMA sandbox - at least in SVN.
>
> On the website, Ruta has been added on the left navigation menu on the same level as
> Annotators, Tools & Servers, etc. It is also listed in the Sandbox section.
>
> I have added uimaFIT to the left navigation menu as well now. Contrary to other
> sandbox components, both uimaFIT and Ruta have rather large "project" pages.
>
> Also, Ruta is listed as a separate download in the downloads section. I've added
> uimaFIT there as well now.
>
> I'm not sure where this is going, but it's probably something we should discuss.
>
> Should uimaFIT and Ruta be removed from the navigation bar and just end up on the
> sandbox page?
>
> Actually, looking at the nav section, there's loads of developer
> information, but the stuff users are interested in, e.g. components and tools
> is comparatively underrepresented/small. The "Annotators" and "Addons & Sandbox"
> links basically link to the same place, although being two different items in the
> navigation. Similarly, some things are listed under "tools" and again under "addons".
>
> Should there be something like "featured" sub-projects?
>
> How are downloads for sandbox projects handled when they get their own release
> cycle? As separate downloads on the downloads page (as now) or somehow different?
>
> And of course… is the uimaFIT page ok? (http://uima.apache.org/uimafit.html)
>
> I'll hold off the release announcement mail until I get some feedback on these
> questions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
Re: Questions on the organization of the UIMA website
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 9/5/2013 6:47 AM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> On 02.09.2013, at 15:41, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/31/2013 5:15 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>>> <snip>
>> Does "featured" mean something that changes, perhaps monthly, over time? That
>> could be good, but would require more "tending-the-garden" on an ongoing basis
>> for our website. It we can find some volunteer help to help out with that, that
>> could work.
> I was thinking that there are some parts which are more actively developed than others.
> E.g. currently, the UIMA SDK, uimaFIT, Ruta and DUCC are pretty active and could be
> featured. I'd expect this situation not to change too often, at least not monthly.
> Maybe every 6 months or yearly.
Putting myself in the "users" frame of mind, it's not clear to me that the
typical visitor wants to know what's under active development. They probably
want to know what's new (news), or what UIMA is all about, or learn enough about
some new-ish area to investigate further.
I think decisions on what to put up front in the website should be driven by a
combination of what we think our users want to hear about, and what we might
want to bring to our user's attention that they might find helpful.
Most of the "new" info is put into News, but it's not particularly highlighted -
it's a big list.
If we wanted to "market" (e.g., do some kind of educational promotion for) some
new parts of the project, I can see the value in that. It might be a new part
of the web page, and be fairly "high" up in the serial reading order, maybe even
first. I think this would work best if it was couched in terms of some current
"problem", and how the new part mitigates that - in terms of interest to the
user (not the developer). It could be quite short, - more of a teaser - but
interesting enough to get users to click on a link to another page which might
have more information (of the education - promotional kind), which, in turn,
would have links to all the details a user might want to know.
We could also decide to have a similar section for developers, but I think it
should not be on the top page.
just my 2 cents...
-Marshall
>
> -- Richard
Re: Questions on the organization of the UIMA website
Posted by Richard Eckart de Castilho <ri...@gmail.com>.
On 02.09.2013, at 15:41, Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com> wrote:
> On 8/31/2013 5:15 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
>> Should uimaFIT and Ruta be removed from the navigation bar and just end up on the
>> sandbox page?
> I don't think so, given their larger, active communities.
Great.
>> Actually, looking at the nav section, there's loads of developer
>> information, but the stuff users are interested in, e.g. components and tools
>> is comparatively underrepresented/small. The "Annotators" and "Addons & Sandbox"
>> links basically link to the same place, although being two different items in the
>> navigation. Similarly, some things are listed under "tools" and again under "addons".
>>
>> Should there be something like "featured" sub-projects?
> Does "featured" mean something that changes, perhaps monthly, over time? That
> could be good, but would require more "tending-the-garden" on an ongoing basis
> for our website. It we can find some volunteer help to help out with that, that
> could work.
I was thinking that there are some parts which are more actively developed than others.
E.g. currently, the UIMA SDK, uimaFIT, Ruta and DUCC are pretty active and could be
featured. I'd expect this situation not to change too often, at least not monthly.
Maybe every 6 months or yearly.
-- Richard
Re: Questions on the organization of the UIMA website
Posted by Marshall Schor <ms...@schor.com>.
On 8/31/2013 5:15 PM, Richard Eckart de Castilho wrote:
> Hi,
>
> uimaFIT and Ruta are both officially part of the UIMA sandbox - at least in SVN.
>
> On the website, Ruta has been added on the left navigation menu on the same level as
> Annotators, Tools & Servers, etc. It is also listed in the Sandbox section.
>
> I have added uimaFIT to the left navigation menu as well now. Contrary to other
> sandbox components, both uimaFIT and Ruta have rather large "project" pages.
>
> Also, Ruta is listed as a separate download in the downloads section. I've added
> uimaFIT there as well now.
>
> I'm not sure where this is going, but it's probably something we should discuss.
>
> Should uimaFIT and Ruta be removed from the navigation bar and just end up on the
> sandbox page?
I don't think so, given their larger, active communities.
>
>
> Actually, looking at the nav section, there's loads of developer
> information, but the stuff users are interested in, e.g. components and tools
> is comparatively underrepresented/small. The "Annotators" and "Addons & Sandbox"
> links basically link to the same place, although being two different items in the
> navigation. Similarly, some things are listed under "tools" and again under "addons".
>
> Should there be something like "featured" sub-projects?
Does "featured" mean something that changes, perhaps monthly, over time? That
could be good, but would require more "tending-the-garden" on an ongoing basis
for our website. It we can find some volunteer help to help out with that, that
could work.
>
> How are downloads for sandbox projects handled when they get their own release
> cycle? As separate downloads on the downloads page (as now) or somehow different?
We haven't come across that issue before :-) ; I don't have any strong opinions
except that we should make it easy / obvious for users to do. It might help to
look at what some other projects do.
>
> And of course… is the uimaFIT page ok? (http://uima.apache.org/uimafit.html)
I may get some time to take a look... (It's "labor day" - meaning the family
asks you do to lots of labor around the house :-) )
-Marshall
>
> I'll hold off the release announcement mail until I get some feedback on these
> questions.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard