A lot of negativism here ... :o)
On Friday 28 May 2004 18:09, Leo Simons wrote: > Safari on OS X 10.3.4 (or so, whatever the latest version is): > * horizontal scrollbar (on a 1024x768 screen) on all pages > (apparently caused by the right-aligned menu) I have almost concluded it is almost impossible to be pixel perfect on every browser, for instance it looks extremely bad on non-CSS (1 or2?) compatible browsers. I think it is still a lot better than for instance the Cocoon, Gump and other Forrest generated sites, which produce pixel sensitive sites (for instance shows up crap on my system). > * text inside tables is HUGE, for example in the table inside > central/legacy/index.html > the fonts look like 14pt or 15pts That is why I have the http://nagoya.apache.org/jira/browse/CENTRAL-1. The point size is 12pt (nothing to do with pixels), which should show in your screen as 'normal reading size', i.e. what most books are printed in. Unfortunately, it seems there are many systems out there that ends up un-calibrated by the Browser + OS + DIsplay driver + Monitor physical size, and that fact has accelerated the detoriation of the 'point system', and some new inofficial "standard" is emerging. <rant> IMHO, this is a very sad development, and I don't know how to deal with it. Some Browser+OS+Driver combo produces better results than others. Should one try to satisfy the masses with the bad systems or produce the correct ones? I happen to believe in standards. Starting with the abandonment of "Rule of Thumb", all the way through metric, DIN and ISO standards, our society wouldn't exist without it. I now feel we are back to "Rule of Thumb" and we are measuring against the thumb of Bill Gates & Co. </rant> > * no link back to www.apache.org This is being addressed. I am putting in a faded feather in the top bar, which I think looks neat and follows the theme. > * __too__ different from the rest of the ASF websites. The menu is on > the right, the front page is empty, there is half a dozen terms that > are not explained but highly foreign (ie "laboratory", "central", ...) I don't see this as a problem. How big change is 'allowed'. jakarta follows the ASF look, xml.a.o doesn't, Cocoon/Forrest has their variants and Maven some more. Is it all about moving the menu to the right? > * number of clicks/minutes required to find the download of > avalon-framework (still haven't found it...) > * complete breakage of "backward compatibility" (everything has moved, > old URLs no longer work, etc etc)...where's my API docs?? That is not a "Look" issue (see Subject line). You are now into 'organization of content', which is a different concern (SoC). <snip content="more content organization issues" /> > answers to questions like these should be on the front page, or hooked > from the front page. But to meet your argumentation in "content organization"; I agree. > You're doing a radical rewrite of everything here, at the same time. I disagree. If you are only making incremental chagnes to something 'better", you will either not be able to reach a goal, or have something much worse on the way. i.e. If you are on a local maximum, you can't reach an ultimate maximum with reduction of your achieved altitude. > Start with just changing the > look of the current site (not the menu items or navigational structure), > iron out the bugs and "release", incorporate feedback and "release", > set up the first bit of the new structure "central" or "portal" or > "planet" or whatever idea you have here and "release". Isn't this what I am doing? I am producing a new look. But since the navigation of the look has some important pieces they are need in there from the beginning. The existing content has been brought into that look 'as-is', site->central, various product materials -> products and stuff that are not at all up to date -> central/legacy. Doing that, is what you say should be done, and few paragraphs higher up, you are heavily criticizing "content organization" (which have barely changed beyond the 'central', 'products', 'planet' leader). Sorry, but the criticism is not at all consistent. > In summary: > * breaks "backward compatibility". Necessary. The old site is extremely disorganized. > * too different from what people expect. > * many steps back from a "ussability" and "navigatability" POV. > * incremental changes, not radical ones, not just for software. > * think of the main "user stories" for your website and make sure those > are supported, and supported well. What happened to your hippie/revolutionary culture? Change is painful for the rulers, and can be liberating for the subjects, and often necessary to radically break out from stale norm. Example; We are changing the traffic from driving on one side of the road to the other. Incremental principle, let start with cars first, do truncks later, or we take it one junction at a time and work our way through all. Silly example? Well, it is a real world example of that intermediary solutions may not be acceptable. I think we have that here as well, although less dramatic. > maybe you want to talk to a web usability person and sit next to him as > he runs through the site. That is mostly 'content organization' and somewhat a later concern. As for menus on the right or left, and its role in 'usability', I have read numerous reports that menus _should_ be on the right, but since most menus are placed on the left, users have developed a bad habit of thinking that is better. _I_ have no strong opinion about it, and was in fact planning a small javascript that pushed the menu to either side, by user choice. You are also welcome to participate in the content organization side of things. Except for the central, products, planet concepts, nothing much else is in finalization stages. Cheers Niclas -- +------//-------------------+ / http://www.bali.ac / / http://niclas.hedhman.org / +------//-------------------+ --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
