1 |
Carsten Lohrke wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
>I have to say I'm somewhat disappointed by what I see compared to Aarons |
4 |
>proposed look¹. |
5 |
> |
6 |
> |
7 |
> |
8 |
> |
9 |
Agreed! |
10 |
|
11 |
>a) Regarding the space below the two horizontal menus: A continuous image |
12 |
>looks much better than these "cells" with a lot of useless and redundant |
13 |
>links above them. If you think the space is wasted - well then drop it at all |
14 |
>or make the image a small bar so there's more place for imformation. |
15 |
> |
16 |
> |
17 |
Agreed: the cells are harder to read too, in fact, i think people will |
18 |
not read any but visually skip them. |
19 |
So might as well remove them completely. |
20 |
This said, a design is not just a color theme and a few logo images. |
21 |
When you remove parts or change them too much, the whole design gets |
22 |
down. That's probably why we're disappointed vs the original design. |
23 |
The big image was not just to be visually attractive but also makes the |
24 |
bridge with the advertisement bar in the original design, for example. |
25 |
I think it's one of the real major issues. |
26 |
|
27 |
>b) Adverts: Title them as what they are and draw a line between contents and |
28 |
>adverts. The way it is now is very unfriendly to the reader. |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
I think the original design did that nicely. |
32 |
|
33 |
>c) The cow pictogram and the text beside it is completely superfluous. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> |
36 |
This stuff could be put into the higher "cell/image" stuff, but nicer |
37 |
(aka fitting the current design), IMHO. This would solve two issues too ;) |
38 |
|
39 |
>e) I like the thre vertical menus with the pictres above them. But from a |
40 |
>usability point of view it's really questionable to expect a first time user |
41 |
>finds them instantly when there's so much information on the front page that |
42 |
>he has to scroll down. Either limit the information and make an extra news |
43 |
>page (including searchable archive, that's missing atm.) or drop these menus |
44 |
>at all. |
45 |
> |
46 |
> |
47 |
I think they're only useably in the original design point of view: |
48 |
You *MUST* *SEE* the boxes when you load the page. If you have to scroll |
49 |
down, it's void, bad, wrong, should be |
50 |
changed/fixed/made_another_way/removed. |
51 |
|
52 |
>f) Handbook and other links: Usually you want to read the page and not |
53 |
>metadata about it. The summary/date/author part takes too much place and the |
54 |
>title is redundant. Make that a box next to the title or what else, but don't |
55 |
>let the first action a user has to do instead to read to press scroll down. |
56 |
> |
57 |
> |
58 |
> |
59 |
> |
60 |
I don't know. i think boxes should be a bit avoided. |
61 |
It looks ok on most pages [ |
62 |
http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org/news/en/gwn/gwn.xml ], only has a problem |
63 |
when we have a billion of authors/editors [ |
64 |
http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml ] |
65 |
Maybe if alignement was less messy it would be still acceptable. |
66 |
|
67 |
However, the title is, 100% redundant. |
68 |
|
69 |
|
70 |
|
71 |
A few last things: |
72 |
- On firefox/linux, at least, the right spacing is way too big. It looks |
73 |
like a right column is missing, while there is no rigth column. Original |
74 |
design had a way smaller spacing. |
75 |
|
76 |
- "Older news" looks missaligned for the probably same reason |
77 |
|
78 |
-the bottom/footer image grey "overline" is more dark above the |
79 |
"www@g.o" url. |
80 |
This is from the base design because of the ads boxes design. Either |
81 |
implement the original ads design (good good! i like it! haha), either |
82 |
just make it normal i guess :) |
83 |
|
84 |
|
85 |
Ok, else it's a nice start. I just hope most things get fixed and that |
86 |
it looks a bit more like original. |
87 |
Congrats on the long work :) |
88 |
|
89 |
-- |
90 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |