"Ties Stuij" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >DISCLAIMER: I am definitely gonna contribute to the directory because >i think it's a great idea, and it has some nice features, but i also >have some stylistic and structure proposals.
OK, I like constructive proposals ;-) BTW I have made some presentation modification a few minutes ago to try to improve the readibility. >The thing is, i loose my way a bit when i get to the directory. I >think it's because the directory tries to explain itself a bit to much >instead of choosing for a simpler approach and because i think it >hinges on two ideas. > >First a minor point: i would get rid of the intro page. Perhaps that >was the idea all along. Second i get confused by the mention of the >tags. I understand the plan was to make the directory taggable, but by >making it so explicit i paradoxly dont understand what i'm looking at. >Also ideas seem to be mixed. First i see tag: root, then subtags, and >then i see categories like documents/websites and implementations, >which might or might not be tags? I figured out they are not tags but >ideally i shouldn't have to ask myself these questions. I agree with this. The modification I've just made are for that. >I can see the problem between tags and a directory structure in >general. As i understand it, tags usually have a flat structure, while >directories, well...., have a directory structure. As i examined the >site, i noticed marc went another route. He made the distinction >between categories and tags. In the current design the tags have a >fixed directory structure while the other structure just has one >layer. What i intuitively tried was clicking the documentations/web >sites category to be able to narrow down my choices, but i can't. So i >would merge the tags and the categories together. To me the >distinction is unnecessary and confusing and it hinders me in my >search options. Well I'm using both systems. Items are tagged but tags are organized in a tree category which implies other tags. For instance the tag LLGPL being a subtag of open-source implies the tag open-source. The idea being that if I search an open-source item I want to find an LLGPL one. Also big flat tags set are a mess IMO > But how could they best be merged in my view? I would start with the >premises that every entry is connected to a tag. A tag would consist >of a designator name, and any number of tags it want's itself to be >connected to. Then i would construct a base layout of hierarchy. The >maintainer (marc or paolo or whoever) would choose or construct a link >chain of tags that is practical. Contributors can add a tag to their >submission by choosing a position in the base tag layout like they now >can choose their tags. however this would be for the 'official' site >structure and it would be mandatory. Besides that the submission can >be linked to any number of other tags, including ones the contributors >can make themselves, as long as they connect those new tags to at >least one existing tag. Then i would present the whole structure as a >big moloch with a uniform interface. The 'official' path could be >outlined in a distinct color for example, so users have the feeling >they can always access the information through at least one major >portal and don't have to worry the information might be out there but >which little stream to follow only the heavens may know. Well, it's already what is done excepted for the hability for the user to add tags. But allowing users to submit tags is a good idea anyway. >Lastly i would get away some of the stuff before the real first entry. >For example on the root-page the first real entry is Frequently asked >questions. With my resolution, 1024x7something, it appears on the >bottom half of the page, at two-thirds of it. On the frequently asked >questions page its on the same spot. I would make the headlines >smaller, the space between them smaller, get the 'sub tags' line away, >give the login/show where i am/go directly to tag another place. That >should clean stuff up. I admit that the style is not yet that great. But I'm not a graphical artist ;-) Also I probably don't have the same perception as you of what font sizes are nice on my 1920x1200 display. >Please refute these ravings of a madman, Most of them make sense... Please have a look at the new style and tell me if it's going in the right direction. Marc _______________________________________________ Gardeners mailing list [email protected] http://www.lispniks.com/mailman/listinfo/gardeners
