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

Revision as of 12:22, 22 July 2016

Thoughts on look and feel

The Needs Assessment report has a good analysis of the current web site and provides a lot of valuable ideas for improvements. The mock-ups mostly look attractive. 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.
• Agree with both of the above. ISC2 is not a "competitor" and whilst the report has much to offer, focusing on ISC2, ISACA, ISA for comparisons seems a bit lazy. These other organisations are not like OWASP in terms of objectives, audience or membership. I remember being asked during an interview for this "shouldn't OWASP be the primary source of information" and I said no, OWASP's role is to promote application security - not promote itself. AppSec info appearing on other websites is a win - not a negative.
• The importance of the (ISC)^2 website is not that (ISC)^2 is a direct competitor or the colors they used but that they inhabit the same "space" as OWASP and that their decisions about organization make their website easier for new people to use.
• The suggestion is not necessarily to do away with the wiki but to clean it up and change a few key landing pages to be easier to follow.
• On p28 of the report, there is a recommendation to make the projects more consistency. I disagree, let projects lay out their content however they want - the audiences vary massively, and projects vary a lot too. OWASP is not ISC2 and I suspect never wants to be. ISC2 keeps getting used as an example - what about other community sites rather than commercial sales-orientated vendors like ISC2? At least OWASP has a memorable/writable name.
• Agree, a breadcrumb trail mentioned on p31 would be useful, but is still a challenge to define what the hierarchy might be
• Peer analysis on p32 is flawed. The organisation mentioned are not peers.
• Fascinating, p37 says "OWASP has the highest Alexa ranking"... err so why do we have to change so much?
• The "bounce rate" is mentioned as a negative here but fails to understand how some people use the site. The high number of "single page visitors" was also lauded by the report's authors as awful during the telephone interview, but they did not realise that some people use OWASP as a reference document, and use Google to search for "XSS cheat sheet" for example, then go to that page, use the information and then get on with their lives. There is no analysis of robots anywhere in this report, so the analysis of information presented about visitors is guesswork.

Thoughts on Platform Selection

• p48 states there are two purposes for the OWASP website.... (1 Organisation visibility and membership promotion/participation and 2 Improve application security visibility...). Although this is stated within what is called "Option A", it seems to apply to all three options. But more importantly, "Organisation visibility and membership promotion/participation" is not one of OWASP's objectives, values, purposes or principles. Who said that self-promotion is one of the website's purposes? If the only purpose is instead "Improve application security visibility...", then the arguments for the 3 options need to be revisited e.g. the report says "These 2 purposes are at odds with each other".

Thoughts on Information Architecture

• The proposed top level navigation on p50 is inward looking, and doesn't consider the site's audiences and their needs
• The "OWASP Podcast" is no longer updated - it is called "OWASP 24/7"
• The proposed design for the home page on p53 is not compatible with OWASP's activity level and ability to generate content frequently, specifically:
  • Blog post frequency is typically 2-4 per month which would give the impression not much is happening
  • Not sure how "latest news" is different to what appears on "blog" or "podcast" or "events" - the Global Connector is the most regular OWASP output, but that content also appear on the blog and OWASP 24/7
  • OWASP 24/7 frequency is quite variable. Excellent content but old dates might put people off
  • The events diary has never represented all the chapter and other local meetings going on, and therefore suggests OWASP is not active in many places when it actually is - most events listed on the current home page calendar are not OWASP events, but security sector events
  • "AppSec feed" hasn't existed for many years now - it was extremely good at the time, but a spot on the home page with no content will look terrible
• The earlier section of the report suggests that most visitors want the Top 10, ASVS and Cheat Sheets. they are not mentioned anywhere on the proposed design
• Project drop down on p56 is OWASP-centric instead of audience-centric - who cares how OWASP categorises its own projects? It's important, but shouldn't be the prime way to find information.
• How is "recent activity" on the projects page updated and who does it?
• The project wiki article page suggestion on p57 looks boring, and throws away lots of content on many project pages
• Breadcrumb trail and other things were mentioned as missing in the report discussion, but lots of those recommendations don't appear in the proposed designs - why not?

Thoughts on Back Office and Infrastructure Architecture

This should certainly be a priority. It is difficult to volunteer for projects and efforts since work needed is not centralized. Additionally, communication seems to always go out of band to email which reduces overall teamwork and transparency. While the groups are very successful, we are losing volunteer work due to an inability to locate it.

Thoughts on Gamification

• The pool of active contributors is not large enough to make gamification meaningful

Thoughts on Features and Release Roadmap

• The report says on p64 that "[content on] MediaWiki older than 2 years and have not been accessed frequently should fall under the archive". No thanks, the test should be whether the content is still relevant or useful. Not sue the report authors understand what OWASP's mission is about.
• "Automated scoring and badging" - no thanks

Thoughts on Search Functionality

Another topic...