Add apps and implementations sections

[olizilla]

We want to add informtion about our apps IPFS Companion and IPFS Desktop, and our implementations in go-ipfs and js-ipfs. There are some moves to do that in #280 and https://github.com/ipfs/docs/pull/136. To best show these things off we should give them their own sections and re-think the top navigation. Let's get focused!

• About - link to the current #why section as it leads nicely into the what and how content.
• Get Started - link to https://docs.ipfs.io
• Implementations - a new section that introduces go-ipfs and js-ipfs (and others, rust?)
• Apps - a new section that introuduces IPFS Companion and IPFS Desktop with download links
• Community - link to a renamed https://ipfs.io/#latest section with more info on the forum https://discuss.ipfs.io/ and the matrix / irc channel, as well as the blog, videos, and press articles.

[olizilla]

@daviddias @lidel @Mr0grog what do you think? @fsdiogo lets add more thoughts here about the new sections for implementations and apps

[lidel]

Just brainstorming some alternatives:

• "Get started" → "Documentation" / "Docs" → http://docs.ipfs.io/
• "Implementations" → "Code" (not only implementations, but also a section with client libraries)
• "Apps" → "Downloads" (apart from Companion and Desktop could link to entries at https://dist.ipfs.io as well)

[fsdiogo]

I've made a little mock in Figma with the new section:

What do you guys think?

I think we could put Implementations and Apps in the same section, between the Why and the How. Having the navy background gives it the needed emphasis, as the sections above and below come with the white background.

[fsdiogo]

What I think we really need is a dedicated logo for go-ipfs and js-ipfs (we don't have none, right @akrych?). Desktop and Companion could benefit from having one too.

[olizilla]

@fsdiogo in general, I like it.

• Please check the contrast of the text color for the text. http://accessible-colors.com/
• Try left aligning the text under the items.
• The implementations section probably should come after the "IPFS aims to replace HTTP..." chunk, as I think that statement makes more sense when it comes directly after the list of reasons in the why section.
• Could you try sketching out the header nav that goes with this.

[fsdiogo]

Please check the contrast of the text color for the text. http://accessible-colors.com

The text is white with 60% opacity. That site doesn't support rgba, but don't take those colours too seriously, as I'm doing most of the stuff by eye 😛

The implementations section probably should come after the "IPFS aims to replace HTTP..." chunk, as I think that statement makes more sense when it comes directly after the list of reasons in the why section.

Makes sense :+1:

Here it goes:

Could you try sketching out the header nav that goes with this.

Yes. Coming soon.

[fsdiogo]

• Took some of the links ideas from the first post by @olizilla
• I'm not a fan of the Why and How, but can't think of better words for that right now
  • This makes me think if those two sections should be together with About (I like it) and the Implementations below that. The only downside is that it seems to me that it gets a bit hidden
• Implementations is enough as the apps are in the same section
• Docs works well as it's widely used across different products
• I like the Community idea so I kept it

We can put the other links in the footer and tidy it up a bit too.

[olizilla]

@momack @mikeal I know you have thoughts about the ipfs.io website, so FYI, we're working on a related update so we can better show off Companion, Desktop, go-ipfs and js.ipfs.io

[mikeal]

@olizilla how we are defining the scope of what we feature in this section? It sounds like this is a very small subset of awesome-ipfs. Is the criteria "projects PL makes" or is the criteria a little broader like "applications that give people easier access to IPFS."

[olizilla]

My goal for this pass was to do a better job of showing off IPFS Companion and IPFS Desktop. I'm all in favour of calling out great IPFS apps in general. Perhaps we could add a link to awesome-ipfs, like see more to link folks to more community endevours without overloading this section.

[mikeal]

My goal for this pass was to do a better job of showing off IPFS Companion and IPFS Desktop. I'm all in favour of calling out great IPFS apps in general.

Totally, the only thing I'm worried about is additional requests to feature more projects which will eventually have the effect of not showing off Companion and Desktop very well :)

For now, I think it would be enough to say "We are featuring a curated selection of projects that make IPFS accessible to a broader audience."

Perhaps we could add a link to awesome-ipfs, like see more to link folks to more community endevours without overloading this section.

Definitely!

[lidel]

I am not sure if "apps" is the best label for that section. What if we frame it not around "apps" but "integrations for specific environments"?

Another thing: we should emphasize IPFS is more than JS and golang. There is a lot of client libraries for other languages, we could make a better job at showing them. It sends a clear signal "people are using IPFS with language X".

• "Implementations"
  • go-ipfs, js-ipfs (with emphasis on strong sides of each)
• "Client Libraries"
  • *-ipfs-http-client (with emphasis on language coverage)
• "Integrations"
  • for Browser: IPFS Companion
  • for Workstation: IPFS Desktop
  • for Mobile: <future app for android/ios>

[olizilla]

Consider the new user experience. I think that would be too much detail for the home page. I think the go and js implementations get the spotlight for now.

We can link to a page in the docs site for a complete list and a features comparison.

[fsdiogo]

First pass at https://github.com/ipfs/website/pull/282.

Can I get push permissions so I don't have to fork the repo in the future please?