Thanks Josh, we'll fix these in the next build.
Christian On 2/27/09 3:55 PM, ",Josh williams" <joshcwilli...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There are a few bugs I've noticed on the site. First one I feel is > pretty big, but I'm a really big on usability, and it will likely only > affect a small number of users. > > Disabling Javascript causes the logo to disappear. This doesn't seem to > be a problem when disabling images, but the default size for SugarLabs > is fairly small. It should also be an H1 tag and not just a link. > > The second bug is fairly minor and I've only tested it in Firefox and > safari. If you visit the about page or any other page via the navigation > menu, and then press the back button on the browser, the navigation pops > back out to its original state. Like I said, not a big deal, but it's > kind of annoying. > > -Josh > > Christian Marc Schmidt wrote: >> Thank you, everyone, for your feedback on the test site. The goal >> remains to get the site launched very soonwe¹ll work on a revised >> build will that will attempt to address the main concerns raised today. >> >> Best, >> >> >> Christian >> >> >> On 2/27/09 2:55 PM, "Carol Farlow Lerche" <c...@msbit.com> wrote: >> >> I second Michael's suggestion about a web design that echoes the >> Sugar design. Think how useful this would be if carried to school >> servers. And as a basis for web-served Sugar-like activities. >> >> I have to agree with the conclusion that the test design is >> off-putting. It is certainly not intelligible to children. One of >> the foundations of the Sugar interface is to make things iconic >> and simple and universal. The flood of words, most of them jargon, >> just doesn't work. >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Michael Stone >> <michael.r.st...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:52AM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz >> wrote: >>> David Farning wrote: >>>> Sorry there was a typo in my last email the site is actually >>>> http://www-testing.sugarlabs.org/ >>> >>> I forcefully object to everything about this website. It is ugly, >>> off-putting, unnavigable, unreadable, buggy, empty of any helpful >>> information, and in many other ways among the worst websites I >> could >>> possibly imagine for this purpose. It is a very cool >> javascript tech >>> demo, which is not at all useful here. >>> >>> Meanwhile, the front page of the wiki is beautiful. It >> presents the >>> visitor immediately with a statement explaining what Sugar is, >> and a bunch >>> of clearly named links to learn more about Sugar and Sugar Labs. >>> Scrolling down presents a wealth of introductory information >> about Sugar, >>> presented in a logical fashion. It does all of this in a >>> non-headache-inducing color scheme, using complete sentences. >> Clearly a >>> lot of work has been put into this, and it shows. >> >> Christian, >> >> I wish I felt differently, but I agree with pretty much >> everything Ben said. In >> fact, I found myself so put off by the new design that I left >> the site after >> reading no more than two entries. I was particularly >> frustrated by the >> meaningless colors, the dark -> light background transition, >> the useless sound >> bytes, and the invisible one-word menu that overlaps other >> text when I scroll. >> >> In more detail, this is not the Sugar design that I enjoy -- >> in Sugar: >> >> * Colors denote individual identity and contribution; they >> aren't uniform >> over a page and they aren't randomly regenerated on each visit. >> >> * Contrast is used carefully: I would never see a black menu >> with yellow text >> over a pure white background, nor a yellow menu with white >> text on a white >> background. (Both of which I observed.) >> >> * Text colors are never reversed for emphasis. >> >> * Views are scoped and zoomable, and information is usually >> arranged in >> visually pleasing layouts with gray-out filters or search; not >> organized >> hierarchically. >> >> (The exception is toolbars, which Eben redesigned in a fashion >> much more >> consistent with Sugar's design imperatives: >> >> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Designs/Toolbars >> >> ) >> >> (At any rate, contrast the hierarchy-free Neighborhood View >> and the Home >> View with semi-hierarchical Journal or the (deeply >> hierarchical) source >> code layout.) >> >> * For better and for worse, icons are used everywhere in place >> of short text. >> Short text is presented only on hover. >> >> Now, as an alternate suggestion: why not use the desire for a >> nicer website >> as an opportunity to test out our actual underlying UI design >> principles? >> >> For example, I'd love to see a Sugar front-page that used the >> Frame and its >> zoomable Views for navigation, perhaps organizing hierarchical >> content with >> Eben's Toolbar design. >> >> Regards, >> >> Michael >> >> P.S. - Just think of the educational opportunity that's >> slipping away by not >> dogfooding the existing design work. :) >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep >> >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Christian Marc Schmidt >> >> schm...@pentagram.com >> >> Pentagram Design, Inc. >> 204 Fifth Avenue >> New York, NY 10010 >> 212/ 802 0248 >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) >> IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org >> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep > -- Christian Marc Schmidt schm...@pentagram.com Pentagram Design, Inc. 204 Fifth Avenue New York, NY 10010 212/ 802 0248 _______________________________________________ IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!) IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep