Related
I've searched for a while, but I can't find anything related on Google or here.
Me and some friends were debating starting a company, so I figure it might be good to do a quick pilot project to see how well we can work together. We have a designer who can do HTML, CSS and Flash, enjoys doing art, but doesn't like to do HTML and CSS... And 2 programmers that are willing to do anything.
My question is, from an experienced site builder's perspective, what steps do we do - in chronological order - to properly handle a website? Does the designer design the look and feel of the site, then the programmers fill in the gaps with functionality? Or do the programmers create a "mock-up" of the site with most of the functionality, then the designer spices it up? Or is it more of a back-and-forth process?
I just want to know how a professional normally handles it.
Update:
A recap taking some of the notes from each post.
Step 1: Define requirements. What will your site/application do?
Step 2: Use cases. Who will use the application, and what will they do with it? This doesn't have to be done with a bunch of crazy UML diagrams, just use whatever visual aids you think work best for you. Find a CMS vendor, or a search vendor, or both. While planning, maybe do some competitor analysis, and see how those in similar fields have done theirs.
Step 3: Visual proof-of-concept. This is done by your designer, NOT your programmers... Programmers are notoriously bad at UI. Use an image program like Photoshop, not an HTML editor. Leave it fluid and simple at first. Select the three-color theme for the site (two primaries and an accent.) Get a sense of how you want to lay things out, keeping in mind the chosen CMS and/or search functionality. Focus hard on usability, add pizzaz later. Turn the created concept into JPEG mock-ups, or create a staging site to allow the client to view the work. A staging site will allow for future releases to be tested prior to moving it to production.
Step 4: Once the site is conceptualized by your designers, have your HTML/CSS developer turn it into markup. He/she should shoot for XHTML compliance and test on as many major browsers as you can. Also a good time to set up versioning/bug tracking/management systems, to keep track of changes, bugs, and feedback.
Step 5: Have your programmers start turning your requirements into software. This can and should be done in parallel with Step 4- there's no reason they can't be coding up the major pieces and writing tests while the UI is designed and developed.
Step 6: Marry up the final UI design with the code. Test, Test, Test!!
Step 7: Display end result to client, and get client sign-off.
Step 8: Deploy the site to production.
Rinse, Repeat...
Step 1: Define requirements. What will your site/application do?
Step 2: Use cases. Who will use the application, and what will they do with it? This doesn't have to be done with a bunch of crazy UML diagrams, just use whatever visual aids you think work best for you.
Step 3: Visual proof-of-concept. This is done by your designer, NOT your programmers. Use an image program like Photoshop, not an HTML editor. Leave it fluid and simple at first. Select the three-color theme for the site (two primaries and an accent.) Get a sense of how you want to lay things out. Focus hard on usability, add pizzaz later.
Step 4: Once the site is conceptualized by your designers, have your HTML/CSS developer turn it into markup. He/she should shoot for XHTML compliance and test on as many major browsers as you can.
Step 5: Have your programmers start turning your requirements into software. This can and should be done in parallel with Step 4- there's no reason they can't be coding up the major pieces and writing tests while the UI is designed and developed.
Step 6: Marry up the final UI design with the code. Test, Test, Test!!
Rinse, Repeat...
There is no one universal way. Every shop does it differently. Hence, a warning: gross generalizations follow.
Web development typically consists of much shorter release cycles, because it's so simple to push out a release, compared to client-side software. Thus the more "agile" methods are more frequently used than the "waterfall" models encountered in developing client software.
Figure out what, exactly, you're building.
Take care of all the legal stuff (e.g. what business entity you'll be forming, how will each team member be compensated for their work, will there be health benefits, etc).
Mockups. I suggest having the designers do the mockups since programmers are notoriously bad at UI design.
Set up some sort of bug tracking / case management system so that you have a centralized place for all your feature requests and bug reports.
Start coding.
Once you have a simple version of your app, get some people to test it out to make sure you're on the right path.
???
Profit!
As a first step, I'd recommend doing a bit of up-front design using an approach such as paper prototyping, to lock down what it is you want your website to do, and roughly how you want it to look.
Next up, read up on the Agile approach to software development and see if you like the sound of what it suggests. It tends to work best with smaller, well-motivated teams.
Figure out the minimum amount of functionality you can create that you can deliver as a product so that you can get user feedback as soon as possibly. Then expect to iteratively add functionality to the product over time.
The Web Style Guide provides a pretty detailed overview of the process.
You should mix and match the lists provided here for your needs.
I just want to make sure you know one thing...
Customers are "stoopid" when it comes to web design.
You will have to claw, scrape, drag, gnash, rip, and extricate every requirement from their naive little souls. If you fail to do so? Guess who gets the blame?
The road you now look down is a hard one filled with competition, stress, and risk. It requires endurance, faith, patience, and the ability to eat ramen 5 of 7 days a week.
To add (or repeat) Dave Swersky's list.
Gather requirements from clients
Do some competitor analysis. Gather
screen shots of competitor sites.
Build a sitemap /wireframe - What is
the structure/content of the site?
Get designers to create JPG mockups.
They may use the screen shots for
"inspiration"
Get feedback from
clients based on JPEG's
Create HTML
mockups from JPEG's
Get feedback
from clients. Go back to step 4 if
necessary
Implement HTML using
technology of choice
Unit test the site
UAT and obtain sign off.
Deploy to live
client feedback is critical, they should be involved in every step to ensure a successful implementation.
Hope this helps
In addition to the steps outlined in other answers, I'd add this (to be added somewhere near the end of the "cycle"):
x. Once you have a more or less end to end solution, set up a staging site.
y. Get client sign off on staging site.
z. Deploy to production site.
Celebrate! But not too hard, there's almost always going to be a few iterations of changes, because users rarely know exactly what they really want the first time around.
So, when (not if), the client asks for changes, you can work on the changes and promote them to the staging site first! This is important because a) it gives clients a chance to preview changes before the whole world sees them b) if the integrity of the data on the production site is important, you can hopefully weed out any issues on the staging site before they impact production data.
Just to give something on the other side of the coin. Where I work, we have for the past couple of years, worked on a redesign of the company's website. Here are some highlights of the process:
Identify vendors for various functions that will be needed. In this case that meant finding a Content Management System vendor as well as a Search vendor.
Get a new design for the site that can be applied to what was selected in the first step.
Using system integrators and in-house developers, start to build some of the functionality for the site and take the flexible, customizable software in 1 and make it useful for the organization. Note that this is where a couple of years have been spent getting this working and some business decisions ironed out.
Release a preview site to verify functionality and fix bugs, add enhancements as needed.
Note that in your case you may not have the same budget but there are various CMS frameworks out there to select as well as how much integration do you want to have for the site? Does it have to talk to a half-dozen different systems? In the case I mentioned above there are CRM integrations, ESB integrations, search integrations, and translation integrations to give a few examples of where things had to be wired up correctly.
In response to the comment, be sure you and the client know what is meant by "simple" as if there is any e-commerce functionality, forums, or personalization these are examples where it can be important to know what is needed now and have an idea of what is needed down the road as there can likely be a ton of things that customers may want but you have to figure out some of the nitty-gritty details at points in the future. For example, some people may think that Google is simple, and from an end-user perspective it is though how many computers does Google have running how many different applications doing how much processing 24/7? Quite a bit, I'd imagine. Simple is good, but sometimes making something look simple can be incredibly hard to do.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm responsible of finding a good way to document the software project I'm working on.
What things are important to document? Should documentation of code and design mainly be in the code in the form of comments? Should we put text files or Word documents directly in the source control togetether with code? Should we use a wiki?
Factors to think about include how easy it is for the current team to create the documentation, and how easy it is for other developers to find, correct and extend the documentation later. My experience from many projects is that developers tend to not write documentation because the system for writing it is too complex or developer unfriendly, and that after a few years, new developers can hardly find the little documentation that was written.
I'm interested in what approaches you have used in similar projects. What worked well, what did not work well, and why?
Some key facts about the project:
The platform is C# and .NET.
We use Visual Studio and Team Foundation Server for source control and work item (task) management.
We use Scrum and test-driven development and are inspired by domain-driven design.
The software consists of a collection of web services and two GUI clients.
Other clients are going to integrate with the web services in the future. The integration will be done by other developers on other teams (so the web services form a kind of API).
SharePoint is heavily used throughout the development environment. Most projects have a SharePoint site, including ours.
On our project's SharePoint site we currently have a bunch of MS Office documents on things like requirements, design, presentations for stakeholders etc. Keeping everything up to date is hard.
We also have a SharePoint wiki for the development team only, where we document things in an unstructured manner as we go along. Examples include how our build scripts are organized, our testing policy, coding guidelines.
The software is an in-house application in a fairly big financial institution.
The software is developed by a team of six people over a period of ~1 year.
The developers are consultants hired in for this project only, and will not be available to help in the future (unless the client decides to pay for it).
The client has few guidlines for how this kind of project should be documented.
I think the most important things to document are the decisions. This goes for everything from requirements to architectural choices. What are the requirements of module X? How are these requirements represented in the architecture? Why did you choose architectural pattern A over B? What are the benefits? The same goes for source code: it is common knowledge that commenting the why is way better than the how.
How you document these decisions does not matter that much in my opinion, whether you use a Wiki or a Requirements document made in Word. More important is that these documents are always up-to-date and that it is easy for anyone to access them. This can be achieved by using a wiki, or placing the documents under source control, as you say. If only a few have access to them, they are more likely not to get updated, and not to be read when necessary.
We use a Wiki for our current project and it works very well. It is easy to access for anyone (developers, managers, and customers) and a history can track changes, so you know what has been changed and why. Furthermore, we try to document the code in a meaningful way and document the major design decisions. We try not to document too much, e.g. minor things, as it is always hard to keep those things up-to-date and it is not worth the effort, imho.
Worst for me than lack of documentation is excess of documentation.
Keep in mind that yes: it's really important to document your project, but also that the major part of your documentation is always at risk of never been read at all.
So, I think that a good starting point consist in thinking of your documentation more like something that you may use to introduce new developers to your project than an over detailed description of the inner workings of your software.
G'day,
Definitely use a wiki. I'd recommend TWiki as it's an excellent and extensive implementation of a wiki without being too complicated to install and manage.
Here's a couple of initial thoughts.
Categories:
Start off with an initial ontology of what you want to capture but
allow people to add new categories or sub-categories as required,
allow people to retitle (sub-)categories as required and maybe as agreed for this one so you don't get fragmentation for multiple names for basically the same thing.
let any initial (sub-)categories wither and die if they are left empty. Do this at the end of the project as some areas may only have entries towards the end of a project.
Tagging:
Start using a tag cloud. BTW here's an excellent plug-in available for TWiki to start classifying content early on in the project. Retrofitting tags is almost impossible to do. Starting tagging early also allows people to search for information that may be there already rather than having the same info located in multiple places.
HTH I'll come back and add more points as I think of them.
First and most important, have the comments written in such a way that NDoc can parse them. This is the best way to have the code itself documented, as the developers have to change their development practices very little, and you can generate pages that explain the code without having to look at the code.
Second, getting developers to write documentation is not easy, and getting them to do it might be an exercise in futility. This is where products like Fogbugz come into play. They will help manage the development with tickets, help track check ins, and when your done an iteration, generate release notes.
In conclusion, your best bet is to find the most effective solution that fits in with the devs existing process. If it impacts their development process very little, they will be more likely to adopt the system.
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I have begun work on a personal project that may end up having some real-world applicability. I am beginning to entertain the idea of selling licenses. I am sure some others here have done this before, and I was wondering what successfully processes you've used to do so.
There are many questions on SO regarding licensing, legal implications, etc. However, I have looked around and could not find a duplicate question for this one. To be clear, I am not looking for information on what licensing strategy to use, how to advertise your software, and so forth, but rather, for a checklist of things that should be done to increase the probability of success, and any possible gotchas I have not thought of. If anyone has any personal success stories, they would be very welcome.
For a little background, I am set on the idea of licensing a closed-source, compiled .NET DLL.
A few things off the top of my head:
Strong documentation, because formal technical support is unlikely
Specifying licensing terms and formalizing them with an attorney
Code obfuscation
Exploring license enforcement (either using a commercial package or custom code)
Building a website around the product, including real-world code examples since this is a library
Possibly offering some type of beta period, for feedback and getting the name out a bit
Offering instant/automated purchases
Marketing (oh boy)
Is it necessary (or wise) to start a one-man company to do this?
I will keep this list updated as answers come in. Thanks all!
Some tips:
Obfuscation: Be wary of obfuscating everything. An alternative is to obfuscate just the critical bits (licensing, premium features). The problem with obfuscating everything is that stack traces from error reports are ineffective. When an unexpected exception is caught, you'll want to give the user the option of automatically reporting its details - this really helps with QC.
License enforcement: If it's a utility that can be easily pirated, people WILL pirate it. An activations-based licensing system is ideal - and if it's not too draconian people will be less motivated to circumvent it. For instance, allow at least 3 activations per user (home computer, work computer, laptop). If it's a control library, then an activation-based may not be required - baking the serial number into the library may be enough because customers are unlikely to build their own product on a stolen assembly.
Instant/automated purchases: writing a custom licensing server and web page for this is fairly easy - you need only about 3 tables. LINQ to SQL is ideal for this sort of thing. For the payment gateway, I use PayPal - it's very easy to set up, has the features you need for selling activation codes, and allows multiple currencies. If you use PayPal, enable both PDT and IPN so you can give customers their activation codes both on the screen and via e-mail.
Marketing: try LOTS of things simultaneously - because it's hard to predict the success of any campaign. Especially without experience! Making yourself known amongst the influential people in the field into which you're selling can work very well.
Advertising: advertise on StackOverflow - that's what I'm doing! Google ad words is also worth trying because it's so cheap to set up - you'll know after spending $10 whether it will be effective for you or not.
And good luck with it!
You have most of the practical things listed out, in terms of actually getting a product from you to the customer -
However, there are a couple of things I'd also recommend.
Figure out how you want to handle all of your accounting/purchasing/billing/etc.
Rethink formal technical support (for money), but not at the exclusion of documentation
Talk to a lawyer regarding all of your licensing decisions, agreements, etc., as well as company structure
Talk to your accountant (and/or find one who is good at working with small tech companies)
Some of this will cost some money up front, but save headaches later.
The last two bullets are crutial - there are MANY options for how to setup yourself from a tax perspective, each of which has potential advantages and disadvantages depending on your specific situation.
For example, if you're in the US, there are many advantages to incorporation prior to doing anything on your checklist. If you decide to incorporate, you may want to do it in your state, but there are also advantages to incorporating in Nevada or New Jersey (very pro-corporate states legally). If you're successful, doing this early can save a huge amount of work over time and have significant benefits.
Also, if you incorportate, you might want to consider S vs C corps (S Corps are great if you're a one or two man operation). If you don't incorporate, you can run as a sole proprietorship or an LLC, both of which have advnatages and disadvantages. A lot of this depends on your product (what it does), your expected returns, etc. - having a good lawyer and a good accountant is a huge blessing.
If you're aiming at software development teams as customers then the sort of thing they are likely to expect to see (in addition to the ones you listed) are:
A download service for any additional items and/or patches that the user might need.
Tight version control/configuration management processes so that it's easy to find out what version of the product they have, what they need and what the differences are between versions.
Email/online bug reporting.
A demo/trial version of the product.
A good set of tutorials.
Community support e.g. developer forums. This is a good 'value added' service that can also help with the fact that you have concerns (as a one man company) over being able to provide 'formal technical support'. Hand out a few badges and reputation scores and get a free technical support team ;) ... but if sales take off, seriously consider providing 'formal technical support', it can make a huge difference to the perception of the product.
... and make sure that the website, download service, license server, forums etc are all properly secured and done to a professional standard. If any of the peripheral services are less than 100% then it all reflects badly on the product, especially when yours is a technical one.
You might not want to provide formal technical support, but you could look for creative alternatives like some sort of moderated forum for issue resolution. Also, provide at least an email address for someone to contact you.
Another thing is to hire some sort of designer to make your product, documentation, website, etc look good. It is generally easy to tell programmers who attempt design.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
In SEO there are a few techniques that have been flagged that need to avoided at all costs. These are all techniques that used to be perfectly acceptable but are now taboo. Number 1: Spammy guest blogging: Blowing up a page with guest comments is no longer a benefit. Number 2: Optimized Anchors: These have become counterproductive, instead use safe anchors. Number 3: Low Quality Links: Often sites will be flooded with hyperlinks that take you to low quality Q&A sites, don’t do this. Number 4: Keyword Heavy Content: Try and avoid too many of these, use longer well written sections more liberally. Number 5: Link-Back Overuse: Back links can be a great way to redirect to your site but over saturation will make people feel trapped
Content, Content, CONTENT! Create worthwhile content that other people will want to link to from their sites.
Google has the best tools for webmasters, but remember that they aren't the only search engine around. You should also look into Bing and Yahoo!'s webmaster tool offerings (here are the tools for Bing; here for Yahoo). Both of them also accept sitemap.xml files, so if you're going to make one for Google, then you may as well submit it elsewhere as well.
Google Analytics is very useful for helping you tweak this sort of thing. It makes it easy to see the effect that your changes are having.
Google and Bing both have very useful SEO blogs. Here is Google's. Here is Bing's. Read through them--they have a lot of useful information.
Meta keywords and meta descriptions may or may not be useful these days. I don't see the harm in including them if they are applicable.
If your page might be reached by more than one URL (i.e., www.mysite.com/default.aspx versus mysite.com/default.aspx versus www.mysite.com/), then be aware that that sort of thing sometimes confuses search engines, and they may penalize you for what they perceive as duplicated content. Use the link rel="canoncial" element to help avoid this problem.
Adjust your site's layout so that the main content comes as early as possible in the HTML source.
Understand and utilize your robots.txt and meta robots tags.
When you register your domain name, go ahead and claim it for as long of a period of time as you can. If your domain name registration is set to expire ten years from now rather than one year from now, search engines will take you more seriously.
As you probably know already, having other reputable sites that link to your site is a good thing (as long as those links are legitimate).
I'm sure there are many more tips as well. Good luck!
In addition to having quality content, content should be added/updated regularly. I believe that Google (an likely others) will have some bias toward the general "freshness" of content on your site.
Also, try to make sure that the content that the crawler sees is as close as possible to what the user will see (can be tricky for localized pages). If you're careless, your site may be be blacklisted for "bait-and-switch" tactics.
Don't implement important text-based
sections in Flash - Google will
probably not see them and if it does,
it'll screw it up.
Google can Index Flash. I don't know how well but it can. :)
A well organized, easy to navigate, hierarchical site.
There are many SEO practices that all work and that people should take into consideration. But fundamentally, I think it's important to remember that Google doesn't necessarily want people to be using SEO. More and more, google is striving to create a search engine that is capable of ranking websites based on how good the content is, and solely on that. It wants to be able to see what good content is in ways in which we can't trick it. Think about, at the very beginning of search engines, a site which had the same keyword on the same webpage repeated 200 times was sure to rank for that keyword, just like a site with any number of backlinks, regardless of the quality or PR of the sites they come from, was assured Google popularity. We're past that now, but is SEO is still , in a certain way, tricking a search engine into making it believe that your site has good content, because you buy backlinks, or comments, or such things.
I'm not saying that SEO is a bad practice, far from that. But Google is taking more and more measures to make its search results independant of the regular SEO practices we use today. That is way I can't stress this enough: write good content. Content, content, content. Make it unique, make it new, add it as often as you can. A lot of it. That's what matters. Google will always rank a site if it sees that there is a lot of new content, and even more so if it sees content coming onto the site in other ways, especially through commenting.
Common sense is uncommon. Things that appear obvious to me or you wouldn't be so obvious to someone else.
SEO is the process of effectively creating and promoting valuable content or tools, ensuring either is totally accessible to people and robots (search engine robots).
The SEO process includes and is far from being limited to such uncommon sense principles as:
Improving page load time (through minification, including a trailing slash in URLs, eliminating unnecessary code or db calls, etc.)
Canonicalization and redirection of broken links (organizing information and ensuring people/robots find what they're looking for)
Coherent, semantic use of language (from inclusion and emphasis of targeted keywords where they semantically make sense [and earn a rankings boost from SE's] all the way through semantic permalink architecture)
Mining search data to determine what people are going to be searching for before they do, and preparing awesome tools/content to serve their needs
SEO matters when you want your content to be found/accessed by people -- especially for topics/industries where many players compete for attention.
SEO does not matter if you do not want your content to be found/accessed, and there are times when SEO is inappropriate. Motives for not wanting your content found -- the only instances when SEO doesn't matter -- might vary, and include:
Privacy
When you want to hide content from the general public for some reason, you have no incentive to optimize a site for search engines.
Exclusivity
If you're offering something you don't want the general public to have, you need not necessarily optimize that.
Security
For example, say, you're an SEO looking to improve your domain's page load time, so you serve static content through a cookieless domain. Although the cookieless domain is used to improve the SEO of another domain, the cookieless domain need not be optimized itself for search engines.
Testing In Isolation
Let's say you want to measure how many people link to a site within a year which is completely promoted with AdWords, and through no other medium.
When One's Business Doesn't Rely On The Web For Traffic, Nor Would They Want To
Many local businesses or businesses which rely on point-of-sale or earning their traffic through some other mechanism than digital marketing may not want to even consider optimizing their site for search engines because they've already optimized it for some other system, perhaps like people walking down a street after emptying out of bars or an amusement park.
When Competing Differently In An A Saturated Market
Let's say you want to market entirely through social media, or internet cred & reputation here on SE. In such instances, you don't have to worry much about SEO.
Go real and do for user not for robots you will reach the success!!
Thanks!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 5 years ago.
Improve this question
I work on a complex application where different teams work on their own modules with a degree of overlap. A while back we got a Mediawiki instance set up, partly at my prompting. I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
I can see a lot of benefit in sharing information. It may at least reduce the times we reinvent the wheel.
The wiki is not very structured, but I'm not sure that is a problem as long as you can search for what you need.
Any hints?
Some tips:
Any time someone sends information by email that really should be in a wiki, make a page for that topic and add what they put in the email. Then reply "Thanks for that info, I've put it into the wiki here so that it's easier to find in the future."
Likewise, if you have information you need to share that should be in the wiki, put it there and just send an email with a link to it, rather than email people.
When you ask people for information, phrase it so that putting such documentation in the wiki should be considered the default or standard: "I searched in the wiki but I couldn't find it. Have you put that info up there yet?"
If you are the "wiki champion", make sure other people know how to use it, e.g. "Did I go through how to create a new page with you yet?"
Edit the sidebar to make sure it is relevant to your work.
Use "nav box" style templates on related pages for easier navigation.
Put something like {{Special:NewPages/5}} on the front page, or recent changes, so that people can see the activity.
Take a peek at Recent changes every few days or week, and if you notice someone adding information without being prodded, send them an email or drop by and give them a little compliment.
As I mentioned before, a Wiki is very unorganized.
However, if that is the only argument from your developers, then invest some effort to create a simple index page and keep it updated (either do it yourself or ask people to link their contributions to the index). That way, the Wiki might grow into a very nice and quite comprehensive collection of documentation for all your work.
We've been using a wiki in some form or another for a while now, but it does take a while for people to get on board. You might find that you will be the only one writing articles for some time, but bear with it, other people will come on board eventually.
If someone sends an email around that contains information related to the project then helpfully point them in the direction of the wiki - and keep doing that - they should get the hint.
We have a SharePoint portal and use the wiki from there - we customised it with our own branding so that it "looks the part" - I really feel this has helped to improve the uptake of it.
Make sure that everyone is aware that the wiki is even more informal than email.... because there will be a "fear factor" that people may think anything they add to the wiki will be over-analysed.
I think most of the answers so far are spot on - the more you plug away at it yourself, the larger the body of useful information will become, so slowly but surely people will naturally start to use it.
The other approach you could use is this: Suggest that every time someone asks another team member a question about the project, they should answer the question as normal, but also add the answer to a section of the Wiki. This may take a few minutes extra, but it will mean that the next time someone asks the same question (which they inevitably will), you can save time by pointing them at the Wiki. This, in turn, should help people to start using the Wiki as a first source of information and help overall up-take.
You can't force developers to do something they do not have an incentive of using for; unfortunately wikis, like documentation (well, in fact wikis are documentation) rarely have any "cool" value for developers. Besides, they're already deep into dev work -- could you really bother them with a wiki?
That being said, the people who pushed for the wiki (e.g., you) should be primarily responsible for updating it, and you really would have a lot of work cut out for you if you're serious about it.
You might also try the ff:
It's not very structured you say -- a lot of people get turned off from ill-structured (hard-to-search/browse) wikis. So maybe you can fix that first
Maybe you can ask lead developers/project managers to populate it with things that are issues for them: things like code conventions and API design for your particular project
Lead by example: religiously document your part of the system. Setting a precedent may encourage others to do the same
Sell the idea of using the wiki to the developers. You've identified some benefits, share those with the developers. If they can see that they'll get something of value out of it they'll start using it.
Example advantages from What Is a Wiki
Good for writing down quick ideas or longer ones, giving you more time for formal writing and editing.
Instantly collaborative without emailing documents, keeping the group in sync.
Accessible from anywhere with a web connection (if you don't mind writing in web-browser text forms).
Your archive, because every page revision is kept.
Exciting, immediate, and empowering--everyone has a say.
I have done some selling and even run some training sessions. I think some people are turned off by the lack of WYSIWYG editing and ability to paste formatted text from Word or Outlook. I know there are some tools to work around these, but they are still barriers.
There are some areas where the wiki is being used to log certain areas, but people who update those are not doing anything else with it.
I will use the wiki to document my specialised area regardless as it acts as a convenient brain extension. When starting a new development I use it as a notepad for ideas that I can expand on as it progresses.
It would help if management would give it some vocal support, even if it is not made mandatory.
I have a hard job getting people to actually use it, let alone contribute.
One of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, is to actually have them provide contents in a wiki-suitable fashion, i.e. so that whatever they post using their usual channels of communications (newsgroups, mailing lists, forums, issue trackers, chat), is basically suitable for inclusion on the wiki.
So that others (users/volunteers) can simply take such contents and put them on the wiki.
This sounds more complicated than it really is, it's mostly about generalizing questions and answers, so that they are not necessarily part of a conversation, but can be comprehensible, meaningful and useful in a standalone fashion.
For example a question like the following:
how do I get git to clone a remote repository???
Can be answered like this:
Hello,
Just use git clone git://...
But questions can also be answered in a less personal style:
In order to clone a git repository, you will want to use the clone parameter to git:
git clone git://....
What I am trying to say is that most discussions in a project can and should be easily used to become documentation eventually. With this sort of mindset, your documentation can actually grow rather rapidly. You only need to get people to keep in mind that useful information should be ideally provided in a fashion that is suitable for wiki inclusion.
I have witnessed several instances where open source projects started to use this approach to some extent and while some people (largely new users) complained that answers were not very personal, the body of documentation was increasing steadily, because other people simply monitored such discussions and started to copy/paste such responses to the wiki.
Basically, this is one of the easiest ways to get people to contribute to a wiki, without requiring them to actually use it themselves, the only thing that's required of them is a shift in thinking.
If the developers still need to maintain 'real' documentation (s.a. Word documents), I see no way to meaningfully duplicate that on a Wiki.
It does not make sense for people to write twice
Any duplicated data is prone to get out of sync, soon.
What my current customer has done is move all this to Wiki. So I only document once, and I do it on the Wiki.
This is okay. Working with Wiki is more tedious than with Word, but at least the doc is online and others can mix-and-match with it.
Another working solution (imho) would be to store docs alongside the source, on subversion. But then the merging system needs to be able to cope with rich text etc. as well. I don't know, if any solution for that exists (other than using HTML or LaTex, which actually would not be bad picks).
Find "sticky" items (sub-3 pg. docs / diagrams / etc) something that the team seems to be creating again and again & post it on the wiki. Make sure everyone has access to the wiki and knows its there - set up a notification mechanism if possible. With some luck, the next time they have to access, rather than dig it out of version control or their machines - they should hit the wiki.
If they still don't, try to see if the team has enough slack to actually use the wiki - Subtler issues may lie beneath their reluctance.
Take a look at the advice at http://www.ikiw.org/ Grow your Wiki
Just to add to some of the excellent advice being offered here...
As a dev in a small company that does largely gov't contract work in the 6-24 month range, I find that my time is often split between development and writing status reports (right up there with writing documentation, only worse!) Having a wiki to slap down unorganized thoughts and notes as we go along has made report-writing a lot less painful (not pain-LESS, but better all the same).
Further, if you're already in the Mediawiki world, you might want to look at SemanticMediawiki. It allows you to take the organization of your data to another level by semantically tagging it. That doesn't mean a lot on its own, I know, but I can tell you (for example) that it can drastically improve the relevance of the data returned from searches. It is definitely worth a look.
Generally good advice here. I'd like to add:
You really need a champion - someone pushing this to developers and management (without being pushy - that's a challenge!) and providing support & tutorials when possible. This person also needs to be a peer (so a fellow developer, not someone in a remote IT department) and really customer focused i.e. ready to make changes when requested.
Speaking of changes, some people here say wikis are unstructured. I disagree. Our MediaWiki installation is structured using categories, particularly with two extensions:WarnNoCategories (to require users to add a category when saving a page) and CategoryTree to show how all the categories fit together (this can be linked to from the sidebar). I've got more tips on how we keep this low threshold, if you're interested.