The typo3.org project

Sorry, i do not think that the Case Studies should be sorted by Association Membership of the agency that made the project. It is a Case Study list, not a agency list! (We got the PSL for this, right?)

That makes no sense to the user who watches https://typo3.org/about/case-studies/ because the user is interested in Case Studies and not in the agency that made the project. There is no relation to the PSL for the user who just wants to get information about big projects made with TYPO3.

I think it should be sorted by criteria like number of pages for example or revenue of the company...

Please do not change the behavior without a discussion about this topic and give good reasons why they should be sorted by Association Membership of the agency that did the project!

And date (crdate?) can not be a criterium because what information can a user of that list get from the date of creation of the dataset? None, correct!

Please keep the user of the list in mind that might have no idea about PSL or Association an not only keep your agency in mind and the best that you can get from this list...

Hey, what about my remark?

Greetings, Thomas

i think it is not a good idea.

The membership status didn't say anything about the quality of the case study and thats what we should have the focus on.

A better idea is to add quality checkpoints and add filters for this.

A compromise is to add this in the filter column or in the top of the list to create a free choicable mechanism.

I don´t think so because

a) "by membership" is going to be the default if i am guessing right...
b) Why should a user who is interested in references filter for "show only case studies done by Platin Association Member Agencies"?

Please keep in mind that a visitor might not even know the structure and membership of the TYPO3 Association - he might not even know that there is an Association.

We all do web consulting and one of our biggest knowledge that we sell to customers is web conception. We all do target audience analytics bevor a relaunch and we all keep the user of the website in focus and not the internal structure of a company or organisation. Please, Please, Please - let´s do this also for TYPO3.org. It is a website for both target audiences - Agencies / Developers but also for potiential new TYPO3 users / customers who might not even know anything about the TYPO3 organization. This is especially the case for the page "Case Studies"! This page is for customers and not for agencies so i have no argument, why the Case Studie of a Platin Member Agency should be in first place. The best reference must be in first place!!!

Hi!

thanks a lot for your work on the mockup!

Thx Thomas!

Talked to Kian. Sortingbar we discuss it during the code sprint and hopefully realize it with Mario.

The decision for the default sorting is to find a way to show the global decision makers that TYPO3 is a great product for big projects.

That means:
- no simple microsite at the top
- the first page should show big companies and big projects not depended on the agency

Thanks again,

i think this is a step in the right direction.

Hi!

So the initial list sorting without filtering will be?

Criteria (Priority order)
1. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fortune_Global_500
2. crdate

?

So if a new Case Study is added and it is in Fortune 500 - where will it be in the list? 1. Place? That is still wrong in my eyes because from a usability perspective a visitor will not understand the sorting...

Here is my suggestion:

1. Sort my Fortune 500 Global list
2. If not in Fortune 500, after all Fortune 500 companies - sort by the revenue field
3. Sort by Company Title

The filter "show by agency membership" is ok if it is not turned on by default.

Hi Thomas, i saved this, membership is not set by default ;-)

I think the first sorting must be a compromise like this because the image we want to transfer needs a much greater focus then the understanding of the first sorting.

Hi!

I can only see 4 Case Studies.

uncheck the fortune 500 checkbox!

What? Are you kidding? We only show References that are from Companies who are listed in Fortune 500?

Sorry, i my eyes it wasn´t ment this way! Now we communicate: "We only got 4 Case Studies" - this is the total wrong way.

It should be (and i meant it this way):

First show companies that are in Fortune 500, then the rest... Crap, this makes no sense at all.

Which List do you use? I can´t find Thomas Cook in this list, neither t-systems - i didn´t check all 4 companies... (Found Telekom but T-Systems is a different company i think)
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2012/full_list/index.html

One more:

If i uncheck the Fortune 500 Filter, the other filters remain - there is no chance to see all references. In my eyes, a filter by default makes no sense - a user wants to see the whole list and then he wants to filter...

The "clear" button is missleading because it does not clear all filters to get the whole list.

Let's agree that having 4 studies by AOE media on the front page leaves a wrong impression.
I agree with Thomas, this definitely needs some more work.

Besides that, the filters are buggy anyway (select "Internet" as category, and you won't be able to switch back to "Intranet").

We discussed a new concept today for "how the filter works".

In a first step we just made it work - a new behaviour concept will follow.

We thought about:
- no filter per default
- hard sorting of Customer Revenuew Descending
- revenue will be editable as input field instead of selection out of 5 ranges
- we will add a -- please select -- (currently nothing is preselected, but it looks alike because of missing empty selection indicator)
- we will add an -- remove selection -- in each select box as soon as something is selected
- the revenue selector will get 2 new ranges (1-10 billion, over 10 billion)

I won't do promises when to be implemented!

A fix for the preselected fortune 500 Tolleiv hopefully will deply on Wednesday.

Hi!

Great, thanks a lot for taking care and working so hard on it!

I think a sorting by revenue of the customer makes total sense!

Is there an issue where the following changes can be tracked? This one is already resolved and I think we shouldn't open it again...