For the www.mozilla.org redesign we’ve been working on adding new content to the home page and adding a new section we’ve been calling Our Causes. I have some questions about this section that I’d be interested in getting feedback on.
The idea is to use this section to tell a more complete story about Mozilla and the goals that are behind our actions. Or to put it another way, if Firefox is a means to an end we need a place to talk about what that larger end is.
The initial approach to writing the main page for this section was to identify a set of community priorities (accessibility, privacy, etc.) that mapped back to principles in the Manifesto and describe what we’re doing in these areas.
After talking about this with other people it became clear that there was an alternate approach to consider. Instead of many causes, perhaps we have just one overall cause (making the Internet better) and everything else is just a means to this end?
Both approaches seem useful, so this leads to a few questions:
- Does the One Cause or Many Causes approach appeal to you more?
- Where else would the Many Causes content fit if it wasn’t used here?
- What name would you use for the One Cause approach? Our Cause, Our Goal, Our Mission, The End To Which Firefox Is A Means? (I’m joking on that last one…)
I have some thoughts on these questions, but no clear answers yet. The Many Causes version seems more correct to me because it has more detail to it, but the One Cause version seems easier to digest for someone who just knows Mozilla makes a browser.
If we used the more approachable version as the main page, there are other ways to use the more detailed version. It could be a sub-page or an introduction to the Manifesto (it rolls up many of the principles into concrete activities and that could be a good way for people to approach the full Manifesto text).
If we used the One Cause version, what about the name? I think Our Causes flows well, but the singular Our Cause doesn’t sound right to me. Maybe Our Goal or Our Mission is better? The current mission page is a bit out of date and could use a review, so maybe that gets folded into this process?
The response to my last post about site content had a lot of useful feedback, so I’m looking forward to hearing from people about this too.