Lets use this ticket as a tracking device to help @lruzicka and @ujjawal1010 towards successfully working together on the Landing Page.
I think the best way to start the conversation would be for Ujjawal to familiarize himself with Fedora(QA) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA/Join, and for Lukas to talk with him about our processes and activities in general.
When this is done, give the design-document of Landing Page a go: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11x_g-64d9pkAoXx2fvelG4Lktts2n4YNQqXhhISvufM/edit?usp=sharing That should hopefully better explain the reasoning and decisions behind that.
In general, I believe that Ujjawal, as a person not already closed into the "we know how stuff is supposed to work" box will be a usefull resource. Please @ujjawal1010, make sure to keep notes on things you did not understand, or thought could be presented better (in general, not only regarding the Landing Page), so important information is not lost.
The overall goal for the RH-OS-Contest with regards to the Landing page is making the usability better. We already have some initial notes from Renata Gegaj: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13scGRYzlI2bs9LUmi_sydfa5pqIZ5RX_uFo4IJC--II/edit?usp=sharing and we would like to act on these, and cooperate with Renata further, to make the onboarding process way more pleasant.
As such, your role, @ujjawal1010, will not necessary be of a (Backend)developer, but of an UX/Frontend developer. The value you will bring to the project will be one of an intermediary between the UX designer (Renata), and FedoraQA (Lukas). You will be talking with both sides to identify both the pain-points of current design (which is effectively a PoC), and the intent behind the decisions we made. Based on that, you will prepare mock-ups, showing how the Landing Page can be improved.
Once we agree on the new "face" of the Landing page, based on the mock-ups, you will then be responsible for implementing the changes. Should you need any technical help, either me, or @lbrabec should be available.
In general, we prefer iterative development style. We will decide on splitting the actual development work into reasonable-sized tasks once we have the mock-ups, but you can expect a process where you'll be starting with a rough PoC, and refining that as you go. You should not be worried to scrap some code once in a while, if it leads to a better code/project in the end.
I would also like to ask you to keep most of the communication public, so we can minimize the chance of losing information in the future. We can use this (and/or other appropriate) tickets, and/or the qa-devel mailing list qa-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org. That does not, of course, mean that you are not allowed to have private conversations (e.g. with Renata and Lukas), but please be mindful of sharing/logging the relevant outcomes of those conversations.
Looking forward to seeing your progress!
Metadata Update from @jskladan: - Issue assigned to lruzicka
@lruzicka - I'm assigning the ticket to you, since you are Ujjawal's mentor in the Red Hat OpenSource Contest. Please make sure he shares his general progress in this ticket. Also, feel free to create additional tickets, for the tasks you allocate to Ujjawal, if you feel it's worth it. I believe logging least the UX-design conversations in a ticket-form would be great, to have the information with the project.
Once we get to the development phase, I'll be happy to take-up the ticketing, if you won't feel like dedicing on the technical/technological challenges.
@lruzicka - I'm assigning the ticket to you, since you are Ujjawal's mentor in the Red Hat OpenSource Contest.
Sure. Thanks for creating this first introductory ticket. Ujjawal should be already reading through the onboarding documentation, so I will advise him to come to this place in the very next step.
Ujjawal has finished reading the onboarding info for Fedora QA and he should be coming to this ticket shortly. :D
I am excited to work on this issue, @lruzicka is guiding me very well ,Will update about the progress in this ticket.
So, could you read those two google documents, mentioned in this ticket?
yeah i am doing
I am excited to work on this issue, @lruzicka is guiding me very well ,Will update about the progress in this ticket. So, could you read those two google documents, mentioned in this ticket?
Hello everybody I am wishing good health for everybody I had gone through both the documents ,so there is a lot creative we can do to make landing page beginner friendly and systematic. I agree with alll the proposed changes incorporated in the UX notes by Ms. Renata Somethings that i want to add from my observation are- --The page will require a navigation tree if the wizards are used for activities --Also a header with navigational elements and search bar will look great I am ready and just want to know where to start need some insights!!
And I also apologize for being irregular since the starting,I will give my best to contribute to this project by being consistent ,Things are not great around the Globe,Be safe Everybody!
Also I want to know which of the processes or entities come under "Activity" ? I need a clear list because this is my first time with quality assurance process
Hello, so now you understand how complicated and time demanding it is to get all the information needed to start doing some QE volunteering for Fedora. Therefore, the landing page was created to take off the burden from the users and serve them the required information in a pleasing and easy way. However, the UX designer, Renata Gegaj, thinks that we could make it even better with correct UI changes (she proposed some of them and you have read that and agreed).
Your task will be to make it happen. @jskladan, the author of the page, could advise you how to start in the technical field, where the repositories are for example, etc.
OK i am ready to start ,kindly provide the access to code repositories and other resources and also to whom i will be reporting or discussing my doubts? Renata mam or Lukas sir?
You can discuss the UI stuff with Renata, the technical stuff with Josef ( @jskladan ) and the organisational stuff with me. At first, you should try to draft the new layout according to Renata's suggestions and then consult with us (and her possibly), apply changes and suggestions and finalize it (in very short terms). Thank you very much.
OK
Hi, @ujjawal1010 what is your status, do you need any of our help?
Just to make the expectations clear, the first steps for you should be getting to roughly understand the processes represented in the current landing page, and then creating mock-ups/workflow charts based on what Renata has to say. Do not hesitate to contact her, and ask for her help, from what I understand, she is willing to give it.
The current state of things is, that this is a proof of concept, and now we should strive to improve the way the information is presented to the "out-of-the-loop" user. This might mean both UI changes, and changes to the way the actual text on the page is written. The premise here is, that the page should not overwhelm the user with a wall of text - hence the "wizard-like" step-by-step process in both selecting "what the user wants to do" and then "explaining how things are done" later on in the process. As Renata said, those texts are now written in a way where it's obvious an informed person wrote them (e.g. using specific terminology or jargon without offering an explanation), and the UX could also be made nicer.
We are not in the stage where "header with navigational elements" is the most pressing issue (while I'm not dismissing the idea), and should focus on areas with the biggest impact.
I believe that your first outcome should be mockups, focusing on the usage and comprehensibility of presenting the information we already have there, not fixing the current code (since it is a PoC, the probability of just dumping it, and implementing it better from scratch is high, so time spent fiddling with the current code might be not well spent).
Let me or @lruzicka know if you are blocked on something, and we'll do our best to help.
I will close this for now, this discussion/issue seems to be no longer relevant.
Metadata Update from @lbrabec: - Issue close_status updated to: Invalid - Issue status updated to: Closed (was: Open)
Login to comment on this ticket.