Hi Graham,
You are about to convince me, I must say... :)
I have little experience with real newbies, and have been able to
educate my parents to a reasonable degree. My scepticism is maybe
comparable to the question whether we should use written language
instead of pictures to communicate what we want, since there are
illiterates?
Interface language is variable in terms of what is required of that interface.
A couple of questions come to mind,
"For whom Is the interface designed"
(This is not as simple an answer as first seems)
So does this include illiterates? Should we expect illiterate people to
come to the OpenOffice.org website in the first place. Is OpenOffice.org
as a program already user friendly enough for illiterates to understand,
given also that many they may be communicating with are using another
popular suite?
Is it ready already for Mr. Thomas Harold Edward?
Mr Thomas Harold Edward Client bought his first computer yesterday
and has heard a rumour that he can download an Office Suite called
OpenOffice.org off the internet for free and so he has just got
himself an internet connection.
On the other hand, your argument makes sense. If we combine your action
statements with generally understood (by the literates) icons, we can
safe them the processing part. We can choose now for a radical approach
for the homepage, I am not against this. But I do think it is radical
given for example
1. http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/
2. http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/default.aspx
3. http://www.apple.com/itunes/
4. http://www.apple.com/iwork/
I would say that these pages appeal to the same audience as we do, and 1
and 4 I would, intuitively, consider user friendly. Clean, clear, no
clutter. Maybe you could convince me by arguing why these sites are bad?
To help you already:
Nr. 1 doesn't need much assistance, is a much less complex program, and
4 doesn't rely on its homepage only to 'sell' it, whereas openoffice.org
does. I was kind of shocked with 3, since it seems to be quite popular,
but again, most get it with their music player of that brand. And for 2,
I doubt how popular this website actually is, it is definitely not
required for convincing users.
I just want to be sure whether the action statement approach is a solid
approach since it is relatively radical in my opinion, when websites are
considered.
"Download"
"More Info"
Show a person unfamiliar with the OOo website the above phrases. Your ones
first with no context. Yours are cryptic, no doubt. Do they make sense out
of context, no.
But the context is there, these buttons are/could be surrounded with
OpenOffice.org, OOo-symbols, branding elements, etc.
> Personally, I rarely
go to the front page but my Opera bookmarks have 33 OOo specific addresses.
Actually I still do... but then, let me clear about that, the website
shouldn't be designed for people like me.
[skipped the sales person part, you convinced me here ;) ]
However instead of asking
"I want to download the latest OpenOffice.org now"
"I want to learn more about OpenOffice.org before I download it"
"I already have OpenOffice.org and I need some help"
"I want to help the OpenOffice.org project and community"
can't we shorten it a bit, I think these action statements are still a
bit too long to my taste. The cognitive processing argument applies here
as well... the longer the sentence, the longer the read. Another
argument is that the long lines make it hard to design around, marketing
is also about the attractiveness, and more powerful make it easier to
design around, I'd say.
Why not:
"I want to download OpenOffice.org"
"I want to learn more about OpenOffice.org"
"I have OpenOffice.org, but need help"
"I have OpenOffice.org, but want to help"
or "I want to help OpenOffice.org"
But what we are forgetting about is (I am checking it now against
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_Pages_Requirements ):
- international users (you have indeed the map, but why should this
follow the same approach)
- we want to promote extentions, should we add "I have OpenOffice.org,
but want to extend it"
- do you think it is still appropriate to include some lines explaining
in very global terms, e.g. "OpenOffice.org is a multiplatform and
multilingual office suite and an open-source project. Compatible with
all other major office suites, the product is free to download, use, and
distribute. "
- What do you think about the one-click download issue?
(I am not sure whether I am covering everything now, but these still
need some discussion)
I like this discussion though, so while my answers may be a bit
short/critical (which you might interpret as something negative), I don't
want this to stop the discussion. I'm interested in what you have to say
about this!
Heh the discussion is intelligent and relevant and I was a great admirer of
your work in the last revamp so I'm happy to put the time in and don't worry
I see nothing that has been said so far as critical, just an opposing
viewpoint designed to scrutinise the ideas. No problem with that at all,
quite the opposite.
Thanks, just wanted to be clear about my intentions, since sometimes
people can take these discussions personal... which is never my intent.
g.,
Maarten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
