Hey guys, Didn't mean to start any kind of flame.
@Nick: I'm not a designer, more of a hybrid coder with some design foundations, but I'm definitely willing to help. I don't like the current layout because of it's overuse of shadows and its "web1"-style layout. Also, typography could use some improvement, and we could also use a better screenshot, to give a better first impression. - Marcelo. On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: > Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: > > > Sankalp <sankalpkh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > --f46d044401de1e3ad604c6de28a7 > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > > > I'm inclined to agree with Marcelo. > > > -- > > > Sankalp > > > > > > ******************************************************* > > > If humans could mate with software, I'd have org-mode's > > > babies. > > > --- Chris League on Twitter. > > > http://orgmode.org/worg/org-quotes.html > > > ******************************************************* > > > > > > > > > On 10 August 2012 04:44, Jude DaShiell <jdash...@shellworld.net> > wrote: > > > > > > > Good, that probably means it's one of the more accessible and usable > web > > > > sites on the internet. > > > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey list, > > > > > > > > > > Don't want to be negative, but doesn't anyone else also think the > current > > > > > design is kind of amateurish and not very attractive? I also did > not like > > > > > the screenshot used, I preferred the previous one, it showed more > org > > > > > capabilities, and the colors and indentation looked better. > > > > > > > > > > My two cents and food for thought, > > > > > > > > > Talk is cheap: how would you improve it? And I don't mean generalities: > build > > a website as you think it should be and then invite us over to take a > look. > > And as Jude suggests, don't forget to keep accessibility/usability > issues > > in mind as you design. > > > > Nick > > > > It has been pointed out to me that my comments might be taken as > "overbearing". Not my intent, but I will take back the "talk is > cheap" part (or repeat it to myself as the target this time) and > apologize for it: I should have reread the mail before hitting send. > > But the larger point is still there: "I don't like it" is a legitimate > response, but is not nearly as helpful as giving a list of reasons > of *why* you don't like it. And providing something you *like* is even > better. E.g. would the current design with the previous screen shot be > OK? Or are there deeper problems? > > Nick > >
