Difference between revisions of "Talk:OWASP Initiatives Global Strategic Focus/website project"

From OWASP
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "The Needs Assessment report has a good analysis of the current web site and provides a lot of valuable ideas for improvements. However, I disagree with some of the underlying...")
 
(Blanked the page)
Line 1: Line 1:
The Needs Assessment report has a good analysis of the current web site and provides a lot of valuable ideas for improvements. However, I disagree with some of the underlying assumptions:
+
 
* Wikipedia-style is derided. However, this style is wholly appropriate for the OWASP style IMHO. The OWASP web site could do worse than emulate Wikipedia '''more''' faithfully. Run towards Wikipedia, not away from it!
 
* The (ISC)^2 web site is put forward as a style to aspire to. I beg to differ: the current OWASP web site looks a lot more attractive to me than (ISC)^2's. The former is much easier on the eye. (ISC)^2 may draw attention through the use of striking colors and more graphic material. However, no additional useful information is conveyed. The net result is a feeling of weariness: my brain has to work hard to take in all these stimuli and I get very little in return. Remember that web sites are not competing for attention like billboards: unlike billboards, you visit web sites one by one. A good web site conveys its message while minimising collateral damage through information fatigue.
 

Revision as of 02:36, 16 July 2016