Comments encouraged 

I crossposted the item below to Dan's OPML Community blog. Please do weigh in. Thanks.

Helping out with the OPML Editor site and docs 

Dave has asked for help in making a site for the editor's 1.0 release to the world, and in making a manual in PDF. I'd like to lend a hand. I have some suggestions and questions.

On the site: If we're going for a Firefox-quality site rather than a typical SourceForge-type home page, I wouldn't presume to take it on by myself. We'd need a real graphic designer who uses illustrator in case the graphics ever need to be printed, and who has a slick pro's more commercial sense of style. If we could recruit sombody like this who can only spend a few hours on it, I can pick up and run with a Photoshop comp.

Questions about the new icon. Dave, do you want it to be the logo? And is Frank donating rights to it as a logo as well as an icon? I noticed when Kosso asked for a high-rez version of the icon, Frank provided an OTF file, but of course that's just for the marker type.

On the documentation: I'm not a very good writer of docs for end users -- I can never quite gague how simple it needs to be without insulting the majority -- but I'd be happy to help with getting it into PDF. That brings up another question of what level of professionalism we want to go to here, too. Top of the line would be to lay out the manual in Quark and generate the PDF from that, which means a real designer again.

If you do it in Quark, though, that means continuing involvement on the designer's part when it's revised. If we do it in Word, most anybody can make changes. Better still, maybe we keep the content separate from the design in XML, but I'm only just now getting into how to do that.

On the audience: Anybody else have ideas on how slick it all needs to be for the audience? Just who is the audience anyway? In what ways is it different from the beta group? In what ways is it different from the people who download Firefox?