Website thoughts and ideas...

[JohnP]

OK not a lot to add. Chris I think all your comments are excellent & well thought out. I totally agree that 1024 should be resolution - 800 X 600 has had it's day... I like all your ideas about webpage content & flexibility but with the added security features to avoid spammers etc. The society webpage needs to be a lot more accessibility especially where the gallery is concerned. Mike's comments about tutorials etc. are also good (i.e. polar alignment, guiding etc...) & the ability to view OAS meetings online if you can't make the meeting etc. would be excellent (a bit like what the BBC do with the Sky at night archives...).

Can you point us in the direction of a few more webpages set up this way (not necessarily astronomy) just to get a feel for the features/ layout etc. How long would it take to maybe just set up a trial webpage - I've no idea how much work would be involved...

Cheers,  John

[Rocket Pooch]

Hi John,

Here's a couple of projects I have worked on: -

http://www.portal.nelm.nhs.uk/PGD/default.aspx true portal

http://www.travelintelligence.net/php/writers/search_travel_writer.php crap php site

And probably a very good example is http://www.cloudynights.com/ not enough info with this one

However, without going into too many details these sites are not fully SEO'd and therefore are not found easily.  The www.portal.nelm.nhs.uk was up and running within a very short period of time, then it was customised.

Chris

[Rick]

In case you hadn't guessed, My browser windows are usually no wider than 800 or 900 pixels. Why? Because I like to have some screen real-estate to one side or other of the browser for other windows, copy-n-pasting links, text, and so on. So I will put my foot down and say that the basic site content must work at narrower widths without needing horizontal scrolling. I think we must also consider things like use via mobile phones these days. Some mobile phone browsers do a better job than others at scaling web pages to fit, but the widest mobile phone displays are 640 pixels, and most are much less. I don't want to constrain the design to a maximum of 800, but I do want the layout to work at various widths without any horizontal scrolling.

Now, when it comes to gallery images, we need a gallery system that will do the re-scaling required in a sensible way. I'd like something that worked a bit like this: You upload your full-size image and its associated description. The site then produces a thumbnail. When someone looks at the image, the gallery provides a re-sized copy of the original at an appropriate scale unless they specifically select a "download at this size" option. Obviously, past a certain size, scroll bars will appear on both axes, and that's perfectly reasonable.

[Rick]

Incidentally, part of the OAS's "job" is to encourage amateur astronomers to do good science; recording results in a way that renders them scientifically useful, and allowing for the possibility that the results be reported through the appropriate channels. If I'm honest, I'd probably give us a "could do better" mark on that...  

[Rocket Pooch]

Hi Rick,

Am I reading this right, what were actually doing here is pretending to contribute to a redesign, but the committee will make its mind up anyway irrespective of our views?

I'm not 100% positive that this is the case but it now sounds like it.  We seem to have two camps, one camp for change and one for staying as it is, and without getting myself in too much trouble here I'm not positive the current approach is the best way forward.  I truly believe that we can do a better job, and if we are invited to put forward our thoughts that they should be considered, not rejected based on a single personal opinion.

I'm not a diplomat, and never will be, so don't take this out of context, but if we ask members to contribute I believe they should be listened too.  I personally have never liked comments like: -

"My browser windows are usually no wider than 800 or 900 pixels. Why? Because I like to have some screen real-estate to one side or other of the browser for other windows, copy-n-pasting links, text, and so on. So I will put my foot down and say that the basic site content must work at narrower widths without needing horizontal scrolling."

It kind of gives me the feeling my presence is not valued, nor is the value of the very members we are trying to encourage to join it with the debate.


Chris

[Mike]

I think as a committee member I would put my foot down to fight for resolutions of at least 1024 pixels. I am sure that Rick is not saying that the decision has been made. The OAS is democaracy and is ran by its members and the committee will make a decision based on a majority vote. The committee will base it's decisions on what the majority of the members want.

Rick I think you are definately in a minority with respect to the resolution or page width you use. I have the luxury of having two high resolutions monitors attached to my system with one monitor at a minimum resolution of 1280. At least 1024 would be better for me. All my friends and family with PC's use a MINIMUM of 1024 width as their resolution, with a good number much higher than that.

However, I do agree that horizontal scrolling should no tbe necessary at all and vertical scrolling kept to a minimum. Good design will ensure this won't be a problem.

I agree we should try and cater for other ways of viewing the site such as phones and PDA's which is why i think resolution independant coding is required. At its simplest being able to detect the resolution of the users browser and then redirecting them to a set of pages customised to that resolution is easy enough. Clever coding that adjusts the page on the resolution it detects is also well within our capabilities.

How about we have a poll vote so people can register what resolution they are using at the moment (with instructions how to find out if they are not tech savvy) ?

[Ian]

it would seem appropriate that the maximum width of graphics and so on should be 800 wide (other than full size gallery images), but dynamically use screen realestate if available. I had a brief conversation with Greg on Thursday night along these lines.

I would make the comment that looking at the screen sizes that are sold by Dell PCWorld and so on, these are rarely smaller than a 17" lcd now, so before long we'll have peeps complaining that even at 1024 they have a white bit down the side.

If you're interested my resolution is 1400 wide, but I'm used to white bits down one side... (I'm sure there's a sunbathing gag there somewhere)

[Rick]

*sigh* I've a feeling there's some mis-understanding here, and it may be on my part. What I am saying is this:

I have no problem with having a design which is capable of filling (and scaling to, if necessary) whatever width is available. In fact I'd like to see it doing that. I'd like to see our site as easily browsed using a 320x240 mobile phone as with a new shiney top-end 3200x2400 display.

I do have a problem with a design that says "You must view this with a width of at least 1024 pixels", which is what seems to be being suggested. That, in my opinion, is as bad as saying "You must use Browser X". If that's not what was being suggested, then I apologise for mis-understanding.

And no, no firm decisions have yet been made, but some decisions seem very likely to go in particular directions for simple value-for-money reasons. However, that's for the committee to decide.

[Rocket Pooch]

Ok, I just checked the 5 PC's in my house the one which is seven years old is 800x600.  All the other laptops are 1024x768 and the PC's are 1280x1024 which is low resolution for the 17" monitors because I have bad eyesight.

Anyway, I still don't think there's anything wrong with having a minimum of 1024x768, and like this forum and new software will re-size down with scroll bars.  Also where's the mobile phone bit coming from I've worked with the Met Police, Orange, Vodaphone, LFEPA and also so TETRA prototyping and if you think we can have a one website to fit all I'm not sure its going to work.  Having said that though the best mobile device I have used recently is a PSP2, there really good.    Again I assume the committee will take into account the potential audience of the site and not design it based on personal preferences?  Would it be possible for the committee discuss this and possible for a working group of people to finalize the design, again I'm willing to help.

So what about the content and the platform, how should this be moved forward?  I have done some digging around and assuming that the committee is anti Microsoft (I think I'm right there) what are we looking at in terms of the platform and how it should be used.  Again, I personally would like to see the less technical amongst us, err like Tony or Fay for example, sorry Tony and Fay, being able to load content which can be approved and edited.  This was we will be able to have a truly contributory portal by the members for the members.  Do we have a preferred CMS system for the basis of the site yet?

Also during the re-design I personally would like to see some thoughts being put into SEO work to ensure that the site can get crawled and listed properly.  I really do thing there are people at the OAS who like myself would like to contribute to the content and make us a repository for amateur astronomy content.

Chris

[Ian]

It sounds to me like you're talking more about a wiki than a full blown CMS system. I personally quite like the idea of a wiki, but it does present a different sort of challenge to set up and administer.

As a one time sysadmin my primary concern would be the level of administration a site would require, and that is where the committee has to have the final say. This is primarily because the committee have the responsibility to the membership to do their bidding and provide a website that presents an appropriate impression to the outside world. If the administration of the site is sufficiently time consuming or just plain hard the site will rapidly decend and we'd all be harking back to the days where it was largely static, but neat, tidy and a good representation of the society.

I also have my doubts that we should be aiming to provide a site that looks good on any platform regardless. I believe this is rarely done, but should a mobile user (for example)  try to view the site, this should be picked up by the server and redirected to appropriately formatted content. Rick, a question, do we see many connections from mobile phones currently?

[Rick]

The mobile phone thing is coming from my observations of what folks are carrying around these days. 3G phones and services are a bit expensive at present, but I expect costs will come down. For example, T-Mobile are now pushing "free" upgrades at pay-as-you-go customers so that they have phones capable of using their Web-and-Walk, and they've capped the penny-a Kb bandwidth charge at a quid a day. So things like the locations, dates and times of observing evenings and meetings probably ought to be readable on a 3G phone's browser. The smarter mobile phone browsers cope tolerably well with a css-driven site, and some of them are also smart enough to scale images appropriately. Yes, trying to cover widths all the way from 320 to 3200 is definitely pushing it, but being open to the possibility would be wise. I'll check such logs as I have for possible mobile phone connections...

My linux workstation at work is 1600 wide. I still only open browser windows 800 pixels wide. That way I can have two side by side. Very few sites ever throw horizontal scroll bars at me, and the ones that do are almost always ones where there's an image dictating the width. Very occasionally it's caused by there being fixed-format mono-spaced example code instead. If a design is done well then available width will be used without demanding horizontal scrolling except where absolutely necessary.

A few folk have been exploring possible hosting provider options and CMS/Wiki/Gallery choices, and I expect the sub-committee will discuss them at its next meeting. Finding a system which allows the "less technical folk" involved to update their particular sections easily is top of my priority list. Finding something that is secure and relatively easy to administer comes a close second, and it must also, obviously, be something the Society can afford...

[Mac]

If your looking for web space and are worried about bandwith ect,
have a look at www.UK2.net, I have used this for a few sites i've designed for and their prices are very reasonable.

It aslo allows scripts so you can create a members only area, ect, which is password protected.

As for the screen size I have always designed with 1024 * 768 in mind

Prices start from £3.29 a month for 2.5 Gig and 100G a month bandwith, which should be adequate.

Regarding spammers
I agree that you should be able to view all the forum posts but to reply to them you need to register, this is then checked and authorised 24hrs later, this should get round the bots, ect.

You've only to look at the newsgroups alt.astronomy & sci.stro.amateur to see how they have been ruined by spammers & bots. One other thought is to include a word in the topic something like ASTRO, that way it would get round the bot posts, as they generally dont include these in their posts and would then be easily visible and easy to ignore.

Ideas for the web site.
Just a thought on something else that could be included in the web site.
On the night sky page you could have a list of all the constelations showing everything that is visible within each constelation area, this could be as a web page as well as a PDF for download and printing. I know most people have star software but for a quick reference for people who dont have access to these programs they could be useful.

Also another idea could be a software page, Listing the software that People use and what it's used for as well as links to where they can obtain it ect..

This would be Ideal for people starting out in Astro Photography, as it would give them an idea as what software should be used for and how to use it.  you could include a hints and tips part as well for getting the best use out of their equipment and software.

Thanks for the post & link for the skystacker mike, i'm going to have a look at that.

Just a thought regarding the Gallery,
It seems a little jumbeld, one idea for a layout would be to sort the pictures in to groups somthing along the lines of

http://www.digitalsky.org.uk

(why reinvent the wheel)

Where he has the Solar system broken down into individual groups, as well as all the deep sky objects, clusters, galaxies ect. as a clickable tree view.

You could then add another group listing the members and their pictures, as well as new pictures ect,

As someone mentioned at the end of the meeting going for the Messier Marathon, we could also have a messier group ect.
(sorry i dont know many peoples names yet)

Mac.

Fays Friend

[Rick]

Thanks Mac. I'll add that provider to the list the sub-committee will consider.

The gallery archive ( http://gal.orpington-astronomy.org.uk/ ) is a bit more ordered and a bit more comprehensive than the gallery on the main site. If I had the space I'd not have the gallery split, but put the entire archive on the main site, and provde a few more ways of grouping images. The archive is only grouped two ways - by contributor and by subject, though some of the subject indices over-lap. If things look random it's because I've put things in an illogical order.

[Rick]

Rick, a question, do we see many connections from mobile phones currently?

I've tried looking at the raw counter logs. We do get occasional visits from mobile phones, but it's right down round 0.1% of hits.