Open stpaultim opened 3 years ago
ghost
commented
3 years ago I like the idea of a 'Support' stream, and of making it the default one. However I'd recommend setting up a new stream for that, so that all of the existing topics and conversations stay in the Backdrop/Contribution stream (most topics probably aren't appropriate for 'Support').
stpaultim
commented
3 years ago However I'd recommend setting up a new stream for that, so that all of the existing topics and conversations stay in the Backdrop/Contribution stream
I think that makes sense.
Initially, our goal was to keep the number of streams to a minimum. However, I am under the impression that traffic in Zulip is strong enough to support these additional streams - also, I think that there is a good argument for separating contribution discussions from support discussions.
Maybe we should merge the newly created infrastructure stream into the new contribution stream to avoid too many streams. My main goal in creating an infrastructure stream was to remove lots of "insider" conversations from the main stream. But, I think that infrastructure topics would be fine in the contribution stream.
My biggest fear is that we are pulling support discussions from the forum into Zulip, where they will not be found by search engines. I hope that we can both make it easy for users to ask their support questions but still keep as much traffic as possible in the forum (or some equivalent resource for the general public).
ghost
commented
3 years ago I am under the impression that traffic in Zulip is strong enough to support these additional streams - also, I think that there is a good argument for separating contribution discussions from support discussions.
Agreed.
Maybe we should merge the newly created infrastructure stream into the new contribution stream to avoid too many streams.
Yes please.
My biggest fear is that we are pulling support discussions from the forum into Zulip, where they will not be found by search engines.
Fixed! https://bwpanda.github.io/zulip-archive/ This is my first time using GitHub Pages, and it appears the Zulip Archive action I used doesn't support GitHub's default themes (so it looks a bit bland), so maybe someone with more GitHub theming skills than I can help with that...
If we like this idea and want to support it more officially, I can move https://github.com/BWPanda/zulip-archive into the backdrop-ops organisation which will change the branding of the page/URL to 'Backdrop' instead of 'BWPanda'.
philsward
commented
3 years ago So more specific streams in Zulip isn't confusing to people, but a group of specific topic repos on github is confusing to people?
I'm so confused...
bobchristenson
commented
3 years ago I feel like alot of what I'm about to say comes from the failings I saw in the Drupal community. Rather than try to write a prose masterpiece, how about some bullet points to think about:
I'm not trying to sign anyone up for anything, but I think the ideal answer is this: A helpdesk-style chat manned with Backdrop people who actually answer questions. Simple or complex. A forum or something could also do this (heck, maybe even a dedicated Stack Exchange site) if people could find it and if answers were given pretty rapidly.
Obviously, it would all be for nothing if people were constantly asking questions there and nobody gave them good answers. That was the Drupal downfall that I saw constantly. If people ask questions, but get no real answers...they'll give up, not only on the problem but on the CMS as a whole.
OK, thats my 2 cents...take it for what its worth :)
bobchristenson
commented
3 years ago One more comment that I just realized: Not only do those help venues need to exist...they're not helpful if I don't know about them!!
If I'm someone checking out Backdrop for the first time, one of the most attractive "selling points" is going to be knowing that if/when I get stuck, I have a place to go for help. I should probably know that even before I click the "download" button on the software. I should just feel like I'm not going to be on my own to figure it out.
I'd propose some kind of big button/link/display right on the homepage that shouts from the mountaintops "Youre not alone! If you download this CMS, here's the friendly people/places that will help you make it successful!" (ie. a chat, forums, etc).
As of now, unless you dig under support, there's nothing obvious that says that. Something like that would give potential users confidence to try it out...
philsward
commented
3 years ago @bobchristenson some really good thoughts. Stripe uses IRC as their "help desk" for developers. It isn't ideal in my mind, but I know if I have a question, there is always someone there to give an answer live. I know Drupal does the same, but it's IRC... The barrier to entry is too great (not suggesting IRC, just pointing it out). The other problem with Drupal using IRC is that sometimes you get a response right away, other times you don't ever get a response. Zulip is way better IMO for these types of things.
My 2 biggest complaints about forum style help is 1) the lag between questions and responses 2) everybody has the problem but nobody has the fix.
I have no idea what the best medium would be for this discussion but I do like the merits of the idea behind a more focused help desk q&a area. I know not everyone is partial to ease of use on mobile, but mobile has become a huge workflow tool for me and if it isn't easy on mobile, I don't like participating.
stpaultim
commented
3 years ago So more specific streams in Zulip isn't confusing to people, but a group of specific topic repos on github is confusing to people? I'm so confused...
We have gotten some feedback that adding streams in Zulip is confusing to people, which is why our preference until now has been to minimize the number of streams. We discussed having multiple streams at the start, but opted for keeping things simple. At least two things have changed since then: 1) The volume of traffic in Zulip has increased quite a bit 2) We are now getting some very specific feedback that the current situation might be confusing new users and discouraging them from asking questions.
I think that the point of this discussion is to get more feedback on whether or not this is a good idea and/or will it be helpful.
Having said that, the Zulip user interface was designed to be used in this way (multiple streams). If I am in one stream, I can either see the other streams in the left column or click on the "Streams" item to see all the available streams. In Zulip, if I am in the "Support" stream and looking for the place to talk about "Contribution", I can find all my options right there on the left side of the screen. Even with that built in feature, some folks are finding the concept and organization of streams confusing.
The user interface for Github is NOT designed to facilitate breaking up discussions into groups they way that we have already done and are considering doing more of. If I am in the Backdropcms.org issue queue (https://github.com/backdrop-ops/backdropcms.org) and decide I want to discuss a funding issue and am aware that there is a special place for that (although, it's not clear how I would be aware of that), how do I find it (https://github.com/backdrop-community/funding). Where do I go to find the path to that repo and/or a list of available repos? I am unaware of any feature in the github UI that will facilitate that kind of structure or navigation.
Personally, it took me a very long time to figure out the backdrop/ vs backdrop-ops/ backdrop-contrib/ structure and there is nothing in Github (that I am aware of) to help me navigate these groups. Adding a new group of repos to Github, is in my opinion, significantly more difficult to navigate and/or discover than adding a new stream in Zulip. Yet, we already have feedback that Zulip is confusing and we are being cautious about adding a new stream just as we are being extra cautious about adding an entirely new group of issues queues in Github.
I hope this helps you understand why these proposals are very different AND why we are being cautious about adding new options anywhere, given the ongoing feedback that we already have too many forums, queues, channels, etc for users to track.
philsward
commented
3 years ago @stpaultim I understand the problem. I also understand the solution to the problem. None of this is documented in an easy-to-find place that is cut-and-dry on exactly where everything is and what to expect.
"Discuss things on Zulip!" That's the basis of what people are presented with. There is nothing there that says:
Informal discussion is on Zulip. Ask questions, get answers.
What to expect: We have several streams to choose from. Here's a list and a brief description of each to help you post in the right area.
Xxx - desc Yyy - desc Zzz - desc
People are going to go to b.org first to even learn about Zulip, or the forums or github. From there it's our job to inform people of the structure of each medium and what they can expect. As it sits, we're literally thrown to the wolves to figure it out = intimidating.
Explain where this stuff is, what the streams, repos, topics are and link to their exact location instead of hiding the link in text will go a LONG way to prevent this confusion.
"I need information, not a bunch of text that doesn't help me find what I'm looking for."
ghost
commented
3 years ago @bobchristenson I've opened an issue to make a more prominent support/resources button on the B.org homepage: https://github.com/backdrop-ops/backdropcms.org/issues/784
A user pointed out that many our streams of communication with the community include lots of "contributor" communication that might make "users" uncomfortable participating or asking simple questions about how to use Backdrop CMS.
My take-away from this comment is that a user that comes to Zulip trying to figure out how to use Backdrop CMS for their latest project (looking for support), might not feel like Zulip is the right place for them because of all the "insider baseball" that happens there.
It might be easy for a new user to think that Zulip is really only intended for contributors and make them uncomfortable asking basic support questions there.
PROPOSAL:
That we change the current "Backdrop" stream to a "Support" stream and make that the default stream that new users join when they join Zulip.
That we create a new "Contribution" stream and encourage people to use that for all the "insider baseball" conversations such as:
1) Core conversations 2) Code Review Requests 3) General discussions about making core/contrib projects better
Anyone will have access to the "Contribution" stream and can participate, but that those discussions will be opt-in and that all new users are automatically placed in the "Support" stream only. The "Support" stream would be for the same kind of topics that we have in the forum.
I think that this might make newcomers more comfortable asking simple "how to" questions in Zulip if it is clear to them that is the purpose of that channel.