[META] Description of page layout and requirements for headings

I took a look through the existing Community and Getting Involved pages, and did some brainstorming.... I think we have an excellent start on the "I want to..." headings in the existing issues, but there are a few things missing:
- I want to contribute money to the Drupal project [point them to the DA]
- I want to help organize a Drupal event [talk about local meetups and regional/topical camps. Point them to groups.drupal.org/groups to find a group or https://groups.drupal.org/events to find an event that they could help with]
- I want to attend an event to improve my Drupal skills [point them to DrupalCon as well as https://groups.drupal.org/events for smaller-scale and local events. Also to global training days, and the commercial training opportunities in Marketplace.]
- I want to get a job working with Drupal [do we have resources?]
- I want to provide help to people learning Drupal [point them towards forums, stack exchange, and Slack support channels]
- I want to contribute my design skills to the Drupal project
- I want to contribute my expertise in usability or accessibility to the Drupal project
- I want to translate Drupal
- I want to connect to people who speak my language in the Drupal community

That's all I could think of at the moment...

Maybe some cascading headers would help if these get too numerous? So we could start with:
- I want to contribute my skills or expertise
- I want to improve my skills
- I want to connect with people
- I have a different desire/need

And then organize things under that? Maybe... it just seems like if there are too many headings, it becomes kind of cumbersome to look through.

I like it! Except the last sentence about "tell us what you want to do"... who would they be telling?

And who exactly is this "we'? I think this should all be written in 2nd person. See als
https://www.drupal.org/drupalorg/style-guide/content#voice
(scroll down there, it talks about 1st and 2nd person)... hm... well, it's a bit ambiguous to me anyway...

Also, I'd avoid words like "easy" and "just" etc. that imply it's really simple to get connected. It could be daunting, and sometimes words like that make new visitors/contributors feel like it *should* be easy and they're kind of inadequate for wanting help/guidance. See also
https://coach.djangogirls.org/tips/
(I participated as a mentor in one of these Django Girls workshops recently, and am a bit sensitive on "it's easy" as a result. :) )

That sounds like the right goal! Let's see. How about something like this?

Drupal is used, built, taught, documented, and marketed by the <em>Drupal Community</em>, which is made up of people from around the world, with a <a href="/values">shared set of values</a>, <a href="/dcoc">collaborating together in a respectful manner</a>. You are welcome to use the software and read the documentation as a visitor, but the hope of the Drupal Community is that you will join in, find people who share your interests, and grow your skills!

There are many ways that you can participate in the Drupal Community. Expand one or more of the sections below, to learn about how you can get involved:

I especially like the part which says "Expand one or more of the sections".

This was an important implementation question. It's the user's prerogative to expand several, if they choose to.

Aside, the related implementation issue has no a11y blockers now.

The live page does not seem to be updated with this new text from #13?

Well.

The text is there, but ... when I see a banner image, I automatically scroll past it to the text below. So, I did not see the first two paragraphs.

I think we should consider putting just a very short welcome across the banner, and the important text below it.

I also don't like the "How can we help?" there. We aren't really actively "helping" anyone connect, just providing information they can hopefully use to get involved themselves.

I have changed both the colour of the image so that the contrast to the text is higher,

Which text? The white plain text, or the blue link text? The contrast is hard to measure when it's on top of an image, so we can't be sure that the white text has sufficient contrast. But I'm pretty sure the blue link text doesn't have sufficient contrast for level AA.

Apart from contrast, the Bluecheese link styles also fail WCAG level A, specifically by F73: Failure of Success Criterion 1.4.1 due to creating links that are not visually evident without color vision. I'll file a separate issue for that, it's a much wider problem than this instance.

In the meantime, can we avoid putting links in the text over the banner image? Like, we could leave the text as it is, but unlink it. If we want to link to the values and COC., we could put that in the preamble paragraph before the collapsible groups.

For WCAG, "respectful manner" doesn't amount to a very clear link purpose in my view; it's just a vague allusion to what you'll find there. If we want to draw a newcomer's attention to the fact that we have code of conduct they can read, I think the link text should say "code of conduct".

Screenshot of the current banner:

Yeah, but does any other project/community use that title for their code of conduct? I thought paving the cowpaths was a good idea, unless we have a good reason to depart from the convention.

This has been up for 2 years, I think we can declare it reviewed/fixed and open a new issue if we want to change it again.