Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

♻️ [Concept] Refactor index page to include user-guide and runbook sections #4967

Draft
wants to merge 3 commits into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

jasonBirchall
Copy link

👀 Purpose

  • While working on platform documentation, I realised how awkward linking from the index page is. I believe this is partly because the index page does a fine job of describing the platform to someone who already knows what a platform is, but is terrible at guiding users through using our platform from scratch or even as a refresher.
  • I hope the changes in this PR make linking more manageable and create a framework for good user engagement.
  • I also hope that the team can start to publish some of its practices and ways of working.

♻️ What's changed

  • The index page is heavily refactored and now includes two paths:
    -- A developer path: for a tenant using the platform, which comes under the guise of "user-guide"
    -- A platform engineer path: for the operators and engineers of the platform, intended for internal team use.

📝 Notes

  • You can follow the instructions in the readme for a better look at the refactor, but I'll include screenshots below:
image image Screenshot 2025-01-28 at 15 55 06

Copy link
Contributor

@AgaDufrat AgaDufrat left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This sparks joy ✨ so neatly organised 🤩
I left a couple of minor comments.


## Introduction
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is there a reason for removing the intro section about Kubernetes? I think it was be quite informative, especially for less experienced devs. We have apprentices and juniors who would benefit from reading up on the technology before jumping into the user guide.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed, it's helpful information, but it's not that helpful on the index page. Kubernetes scares people off at the best times, but throwing it into an introduction is unnecessary and distracts people away from what's important. I prefer to explain the abstraction (platform level) here, the what and why, and leave the technology choices to those who want to know about them. Technology choices (in my opinion) are far better placed in the "How the platform works" section.

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Perhaps we could have a section in the "How the platform works" section explaining our technology decision-making.


### Getting Started

- [Gain access to a platform EKS Cluster](../../kubernetes/get-started/access-eks-cluster/index.html)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Non-blocking or that important – I believe we don’t need to use absolute paths (which would save us some characters) but double check 🙈

Suggested change
- [Gain access to a platform EKS Cluster](../../kubernetes/get-started/access-eks-cluster/index.html)
- [Gain access to a platform EKS Cluster](/kubernetes/get-started/access-eks-cluster/index.html)

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Absolutely, that's spot on. I have to use it for the local deployment to work, but I'll change it when it's moved to "Ready for Review".

@jasonBirchall jasonBirchall force-pushed the update-platform-index-page branch from 0063019 to 5dacb16 Compare January 29, 2025 09:31
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants