Forum OpenACS Q&A: Response to Bboard for OpenACS non-techies?

"Torben, I am a code-User, trying to get 'the program' to work."  Okay, Aldert, I missed on that guess =(. As a code-user, I understand you perform "admin" or administrative functions, configuring, managing, and otherwise operating the system.  You write "I need a forum with Users just like me"... I agree, and refer to it as an "admin" group --for those who want to use the existing system to its fullest. That means perhaps also creating little bits of code within the scope of configuring, customizing, and operating the system.

You ask, "isn't OpenACS.org all about code development?" Partly code development, more specifically (from the homepage):

"OpenACS (Open Architecture Community System) is an advanced toolkit for building scalable, community-oriented web applications. If you're thinking of building an enterprise-level web application, OpenACS is a solid, proven foundation that will give you a 3-6 month headstart."

To me, OpenACS.org is an example [hopefully flagship] site using the OpenACS technology. As an example site, OpenACS.org has an opportunity (and I believe a requirement) to use the tools it creates. If an organization doesn't use the tools it promotes (when appropriate), how effective can the tools be?  This is a primary question that most any decision-maker would ask before considering investing in a system like OpenACS.

Marketing is about identifying the strengths and weaknesses of the system for others to "compare" or analyze according to the opportunities and "threats" [competing strengths] posed by other systems.  A given situation is analyzed in order to find the best solution(s). The comparison of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats helps to identify when OpenACS is an appropriate technology to use.  Creating documentation about the strengths and weaknesses of OpenACS helps lower the barrier of including OpenACS in pool of technologies under consideration --for example when an MBA has limited time and resources to apply to the decision. Or, when someone likes the system and needs a few words to competently state "why".

Now to address the one forum for all scenario:

Like, Talli, I also subscribe to all the boards, though I do not [yet] understand everything. In addition to Talli's reasons for subscribing to all, I am training to develop the system. I swear that half of my problem is based in deciphering the jargon --so many acronyms have multiple meanings --I have difficulty realizing the context. For example, which acronyms are system specific (or have OpenACS specific implications), and which are general to the technology.  Assuming forum categories were detailed enough, I might be able gain more understanding of context from them. So, I fully agree that the forum(s) should support categories.

However, categories have their own problem: sometimes (frequently?) a discussion or message includes multiple categories. Marking checkboxes (instead of a drop-down menu) would alleviate this concern.

Would users be able to choose notification of board messages based on selected categories?

Even though Talli and I like all the messages in the mailbox, I'm certain that many others will prefer to be notified of messages relating to only some categories.

Reuven's point about having to create a forum that cater's to the less initiated is important for three reasons. 1. OpenACS needs to get as much feedback from externals as possible, to further it's individual-community serving goals for the technology. A separate forum with a link from the homepage (or an introduction page) may help to this end. 2. The feedback needs to be appropriate and useful. 3. The feedback and recorded dialog become great first drafts for improving documentation.

Each website using OpenACS probably should have their own end-user feedback forum of sorts to help end-users adjust to the system. Yet, think of how much effort addressing these issues would have to be duplicated from site to site. An OpenACS forum dedicated to end-users and their problems with the system would help create documentation, verify the documentation is working, and identify weakpoints in the user interface and end-user expectations for developers. Developers will know where to go to find the feedback without having to depend on secondary accounts and administration-centric analysis.

In the current forums, Reading The Fine Manual (TRTFM) is expected [which it should be for developers and admins], but end-users should have their questions answered regardless. They shouldn't have to read a manual or do much more than browse a list or table of contents... and then post a question if their answer is not found within a minute or so.  Right now, I know lots of people who are curiously interested in Openacs.org, but their eyes gloss over when get to openacs.org because it does not have a place oriented to people who might not understand or be aware of the open-source culture, the technology used by OpenACS etc. Yet, these are the target end-users who will promote the technology when they eventually use it and come to like how it works. As Reuven states, they "will go a long way toward helping spread the OpenACS gospel." We need to support them in it.