Moved from whatwg/sg#49 on behalf of @geoffcr :
I realize that the front page of the WHATWG at https://whatwg.org/ has "history" and is not likely to change, but - to a novice user - there are some confusing elements to how the links are laid out (and some of the terminology). Here are several - some significant, some less so:
Workstreams
Where do I find a list of Workstreams? Oh - Standards; we don't call them "Workstreams" anywhere, so far as I can tell. That should presumably be fixed.
(We also might want to change the "Standards" block to say "See the other Living Standards developed at the WHATWG".)
Policies
Where do I find Policies? Oh - if I click on FAQ, Standards, or Participate, there's also a "Policies" tab at the top. Policies deserve a link from the main page, along with Standards and FAQ. ("Working Mode" has its own front-page button, even though it's now a subset of Policies; perhaps that should be swapped out and replaced with Policies?)
Signing up
"Participate" takes me to a nice narrative page, but please point people to the governing Workstream Policy and IPR Policy in addition to the Code of Conduct and the Working Mode. (This strikes me as significant.)
"Join" takes me straight to the repositories instead of to the participation page. That strikes me as confusing.
IRC
Do people still use IRC? (In other words, does it merit front-page real estate?)
Format
This is just a visual nit, but it's disorienting (to me) to fly from the "Nine Colored Blocks" front page to a "Traditional Tabbed" Standards/FAQ/Policies/Participate page, or to the Living Standards in a cleaner HTML presentation. Not sure what to fix, except perhaps to ensure that there's a consistent relationship between the tabbed pages and the front page.
Review Drafts
Will we see the latest Review Drafts posted on the Living Standard page? For example, https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/ has links to the one-page version, multipage version, developer version, translations, etc. Will there also be a "Latest Review Draft" button? (I would think so; otherwise, non-technical lawyers are going to have a hard time finding it in the repository.)