Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 16:33:52 -0400
To: "WSFA List -restricted; members only" <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>,
 WSFA forum -- Yahoo list <wsfa-forum at yahoogroups.com>
From: Elspeth Kovar <ekovar at panix.com>
Subject: [WSFA] WSFA Website [WAS Re: [WSFA] WSFA:  Alive and Well]
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at KeithLynch.net>

[This discussion is useful and relevant to both lists, the Forum and the
members only list where it started.  It would be appropriate to set
responses to both.]

I'll start by pointing out that Paul and Gayle have these things called
'real lives' which equal being very busy so I'm trying to keep the changes
I'd like to see small ones and not grouse too much.  I strongly suggest
that others do the same: saying other software would be better, long
digressions on this and that, etc. aren't useful until they have time to go
back to this.  Remember that Paul and Gayle volunteered and no one else did.

A summary of the suggestions I'm making.

  - A minor difficulty, which I'd like to see changed, is that if I search
for "WSFA science fiction" I get the website that still has those annoying
frames.  Other pages on the site have a link to "WSFA Home (no frames)
which is http://www.wsfa.org/wsfa.htm  but not the first one.  Adding that
link I think would be simple, setting things so that a search finds the no
frames version would be useful.

  - A list of, or link to a list of, updated pages on the front page

  - I'll also request/suggest that the next stage of updating the WSFA site
is redesigning the front page but a link to updated pages would be an easy
start.

  - There are issues with the calendar as-it-is.  Since I'm the one
mentioning them I'll look into them.

At 09:43 PM 8/13/2008, lees103 at verizon.net wrote:

>Keith,
>     I must disagree with your statements that the WSFA website is either
>wrong or out of date.  You appear to be looking at one page and applying it
>to another page where the data on the first page is not applicable.  In
>addition, you seem to be ignoring data that appears very clearly on the
>second and subsequent pages.
>     Specifically, the website's home page was indeed last updated last year.
>However, the web calendar is a series of different pages that have been
>updated more recently.  It's simply not correct to assume that one date on
>one page of a living website applies to every page in the website.

Lee,

Assuming that if the first page of a website hasn't been updated the rest
hasn't isn't irrational, it's one of the standard aspects of the
presentation of data.  You glance at an encyclopedia, see that it was
published several years ago, and look for one that's newer.  You don't go
looking through it to see if some of the articles have been updated.  Yes,
because I've heard people talking about it I know that parts of the site
have been updated but it's far from obvious, especially to someone just
glancing at the site.  Meanwhile I don't know what has been updated without
checking each page.  A list of, or link to a list of, updated pages on the
front page would be a simple solution.  I can think of some defences of the
website, such as people would only be looking for this or that which has
been updated but why not instead make it easy for people?

One can also be misled by sections that are out of date or appear to
be.  For example the index of Journals says "This is an index to all
articles in the WSFA Journals that are online. Currently December 1974
through January 2006. 31 years."  The latest update date is 2 February of
this year.  The March, April, and May Journals are up.

Writing the above sort of means that I just volunteered to go through all
the pages of the website to see how recently they were updated, how
recently they say they were updated, and the things that look _really_ dead
such as the "Joining WSFA" page.  We'd rather like people to have some
interest in that but it was last updated 9 April, 2004.

As you say, it's a living document.  The difficulty is that a lot of parts
are or look out of date and a lot looks dead.  Which, translated, means
"These people don't care enough to even keep their website up to
date."  Meanwhile see above about Paul and Gayle having 'real lives'; they
aren't able to cover everything.  You've found pages that have been
updated, they might find that useful.  I've found some that haven't or look
as if they haven't and if I catalogue them they may find that useful as well.

>     In addition, I very clearly found events on the web calendar other than
>Capclave and WSFA business/social meetings.  Examples include a reading by
>Benjamin Rosenbaum (1 August), National Book Festival (27 August), and
>Philcon (21-23 November).  I know for a fact that Benjamin Rosenbaum's
>reading was not scheduled last December so it is clear that the calendar is
>being updated from time to time.  There are also a number of civic events
>and religious holidays on the schedule . . .

I'm cutting the last sentence since it's snide but will point out that
civic and religious events are nice, and sometimes useful when planning
events, they shouldn't be the majority of the information on the WSFA
calendar.  Gosh, perhaps if people actually sent the webmasters things for
the calendar . . . ?  I've been remiss myself but there's a great deal
going on that isn't up.

The other problem is the clearly finding events.  For example, I had no
idea that Philcon had been added until you mentioned it.  Once I knew I
went looking for it and there it was.  Since I was already looking I found
out that upcoming WFCs and Worldcons aren't listed.  Where I'm going to
stick my neck out is saying how I'd like the calendar to work and yes, I'm
already looking at the documentation to see if it can be done.

  - Link from WSFA website goes to full year view.
  - Events on the year view are set up such that rolling over, for example,
August 6, you find it's there because it's Hiroshima Day.
  - With help from people fill in a bit more information on dates such as that.

Elspeth