Website improvement for visitors arriving after FedRAMP outreach campaign

[nikzei]

two week period during which we focus on getting the website in better shape for our outreach efforts. @berndverst and @jameshupp taking the lead.

Some items on the list include:

• Landing page needs more focus
• Understanding of offering, pricing, including deep dive into compliance etc
• No non-technical content in (tech) docs! / developer section

But that list above is not exclusive! They might make even more improvements depending on their visions . . .

[nikzei]

Docs section can feel confusing, partly because docs listed do not all have the same intended users. We list docs for our internal team as well as docs for our users - without clear distinction (if one finds a doc page via a keyword search, it's very easy for an external user to end up relying on docs that are for the internal team, for example).

To do:
Revisit whether internal documentation should live on this docs page rather than just on GitHub. Let's get clearer on benefits/detriments. @berndverst and I are not convinced that they should be here.

@mogul, @dlapiduz

[brittag]

@nikzei We have a related issue filed at cloud-gov/cg-site#333 ("Separate cloud.gov user documentation from contribution documentation") - although just an Icebox idea without specific action items. We also may have the option of keeping ops/team documentation in Hugo (instead of moving it to just GitHub) but separating it from the user documentation in a UX sense.

[nikzei]

For you both to consider when you work on this:

The website isn't easy to use for someone going there to purchase services. Our communications seem geared for a pre-sales phase and need to be adjusted so that they match where we are now, which is the beginning of an active sales phase.

For example, our contact description line is "Sign up for updates about the availability of cloud.gov from 18F," rather than something like, "if you are interested in purchasing cloud.gov services, send us an email with the following information" or whatever.

[nikzei]

Another thing:
Responsibility of tenants - I can't find this in my 3 minute search through the docs. I know that we have plans to do this in a much more thorough way (see #300), but that's not in progress for the next while.

In making our site more customer friendly, we should state that the tenant has the responsibility to get ATO for their application layer. This is important for potential customers to understand from the onset.

[nikzei]

from @brittag in #300: a page illustrating customer responsibilities: https://docs.cloud.gov/intro/technology/responsibilities/
cc: @jameshupp, @berndverst

[nikzei]

Based on conversation w @berndverst and @mogul:

Regarding a "What’s included page:"

• We will not be responsible for application logic, unless we made changes to the application beforehand
• Deprecation: since our IAAs are a 12 month term, should we make 12 month deprecation plan?
• We'll provide configuration federation if you have SAML metadata for your IDP (Identity Provider)
  - We have this in ops docs, but we need to have this up for customers to see as related to SOW terms

[nikzei]

This is for Sprint 1, ending on 11/2.

@jameshupp @berndverst

[nikzei]

The overview page should offer an introduction to cloud.gov that might help a prospective customer or other interested party understand the basics of our offerings and possibly point attention to the pages listed in the overview menu on the left (pricing, security, technology).

Currently, https://cloud.gov/overview/ is the same page as https://cloud.gov/docs/, which offers an introduction to those already using and contributing to cloud.gov. We need to draft the overview so that it speaks to an audience that is not yet using or contributing to cloud.gov.

ht to @jameshupp for catching this. cc @berndverst

[berndverst]

Little side note:
Quickly update technical docs with S3 public access info in GovCloud based on https://gsa-tts.slack.com/archives/cloud-gov-support/p1477439493002940

[afeld]

Moved the S3 thing to cloud-gov/cg-site#490.

[mogul]

Just want to chime in late to agree with this:

We also may have the option of keeping ops/team documentation in Hugo (instead of moving it to just GitHub) but separating it from the user documentation in a UX sense.

...and plug again for having redirects to wherever we move it. There's a lot of stuff pointing to operator docs now for compliance purposes, and the version control history in GitHub is important to maintain. (Please don't take this post as me saying "don't change it"! I'm all in favor of greater separation/a separate URL, and a link from a "contributing" page to the new location as Britta suggested would be ideal.)

[dlapiduz]

To be honest, I'd rather keep the docs as part of the main site rather than having it only in github. We can make it so its not linked directly from the docs page but its just a new section.

[nikzei]

Notes from our brainstorming session 11/16.

[nikzei]

Currently, we only talk about our different packages in the context of how much they cost. Might be good to have a page where we describe the value proposition for each package?

Related to this, see #257 re: presenting the value proposition of our prototyping account.

[nikzei]

See cloud-gov/cg-site#405

During our 11/16 brainstorm, @brittag mentioned including examples of tech that we support and tech that we don't (for example, "if you're using an Oracle database, we're likely not a match for you"). Dropping this here for quick reference.

[nikzei]

PI8 75% assessment:
MUST
--> this is work that must be completed in time for FedRAMP authorization anticipated to happen at the end of the PI.

[jameshupp]

I'd like to close this, as there's a lot more specificity in #627 which addresses a lot of the exact same user needs. It also keeps user feedback in the picture more clearly. Objections?

[nikzei]

No objections - let's close it.