On Monday 03 December 2007 13:20:28 Kay Schenk wrote: > WOW! a lot of interesting thoughts and analyses here! my response way > down below... > > Graham wrote: > > On Monday 03 December 2007 05:42:41 :murb: [maarten brouwers] wrote: > >> 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? > > > > True, but given that the internet is a text based medium.... > > > >>> 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? > > > > The question is interesting in that it can generate two simple answers. > > > > = The Users > > = The Authors > > > > The real answer of course is a compromise of the two but we have to be > > very aware of the fact so that the needs of one doesn't override that of > > the other > > > >> 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 > > > > These are excellent examples if only because I've only ever been to one > > of them: Mozilla. The critical factor for me is Web User Sophistication > > level of the clients. > > > > ( Note please that I am not talking about Computer use sophistication. I > > have students who can do things with Calc that leave my head spinning and > > my eyes blurring over but whose internet sophistication is very low.) > > > >> 1. http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/ > > > > Average user sophistication level would be quite high, considerably > > higher than the average OOo user. > > It uses short phrases to reinforce marketing lines although they don't > > give me a clue as to what I'll see if I click on them... that's of course > > if I actually figure out that they're links. Confusing links to > > information = bad > > > > Bright Orange Icon is a Marketers dream and the green contrast hit's you > > right in the eye! Excellent > > > > (Note it doesn't say "Consumes memory like a Starving Hyena takes to meat > > in a butchers shop" ;) ) > > > > For sophisticated Webuser I'd give it a 9 not surprisingly, it is their > > target market > > ????? I'm not sure I agree with this assessment, but, well...OK >
That is just down to the way the the download button is there in your face. Lots of contrast from the surrounding real estate and that is what that user wants. In fact the rest is pretty much extraneous for mine given the user who comes here except for extensions and other products links [....] > >> 3. http://www.apple.com/itunes/ > > > > OMIGOD WTF what a bloody bombsite.. > > Too many decisions > > Definitely not for our average user. > > Designed for technically litterate Gen X - Gen Y > > > > For typical OOo User this would get a 2 > > I agree WAY WAY OVERKILL!!!!! What amazes me is how Apple could get it so wrong, however, it looks a bit like a typical MySpace page, so I suppose it's down to target market! ;) > > > > > OOo Clients web User sophistication I would suggest is much lower than > > most of the above except perhaps the the i-Works page. However the > > unsophisticated Apple Web user can go to his local Apple retailer and > > probably would and in fact would probably get it through an Apple Mail > > promotion. So while those site may seem close to our first time user, in > > fact they are probably rather distant. > > > > Closer sites would in fact more likely be > > > > www.gimp.org > > OK, IF users generally are of the sophistication you seem to keep > implying in this discussion then maybe this kind of approach is > warranted. But I think you might actually be right. :( > It's rather a brave user to begin with to GO and even download an open > source product if you get right down to it. With all the hair raising > stories of identify theft the news, etc. I was trying really hard not to make a negative of this, all I'm saying is that many of our users don't consider the internet as significant as the sort of thing they do with OOo. The Internet is something that they have to use but it's certainly not something they do recreationally. Email is often the limit. However when it comes to producing highly sophisticated documents that push the power of OOo many of the people that I work with are in a class of their own as power users. Different strokes for different folks. > > As for the rest of this discussion, I don't have a strong opinion on > "action" statements vs just short clear description. Our emphasis vis a > vis download should clearly be on plain, simple, and clear for the home > page. Gimp as a model or some of the other simple designs already > created would be great. > I like the GIMP page, it uses lots of orange and thus drags the eye in. However our CI doesn't really work with Orange and black :) I agree, I really like many of the designs that have surfaced on the wiki. We will definitely have something there. The main thrust of my suggestions however is to make the Home page very simple and aim people at pages that we already have in place. So that the upgrade can be progressive. Right now we get most of what we want done in the present structure, any additional we can look at portal.openoffice.org providing that extra but we can do the home page and maybe the next level in right now. why.openoffice.org is ready and able although I would like to see a different look but that's minor contributing.openoffice.org has been cleaned up by Matthias and Nick and would only need fine tuning if anything download.openoffice.org, as you so rightly point out needs some work as does, if I may be so bold, support.openoffice.org. IMHO those are the 4 significant steps from the Home page for our new user. That's where our focus should be. Cheers G -- Graham Lauder, INGOTs Assessor Trainer Moderator New Zealand (International Grades in Office Technologies) www.theingots.org OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
