I think you guys have it pretty well covered but let me just say +1 to mathematica page making me nervous +1 I don't like flash either +1 the sage page is nice. ...
Maybe if there was some sort of cms/videos it would be great. I had no idea that the whole thing was static. Maybe tack a little django- cms on it or something and have a prominent link to a few screencasts. Maybe if the background of the body had some semi-opaque math symbols or 3d renderings. I really like the site the way it is for the most part and think that more underground rebels will be attracted to it over the stock-commercial-schlock that is the mathematica webpage. Hey! They are using a table-based layout too. What a bunch of baloney! But if that glassy nav bar really tickles pickles... idk, it just seems so .. idk .. I like the sage site. http://www.wolfram.com/common/images2008/headerBackground.gif On May 23, 10:05 pm, J Elaych <microsc...@gmail.com> wrote: > I just want to make sure to add my vote: I think the Mathematica page > sucks, for reasons that have already been posted here. I decided to > adopt Sage after the new page was up, but I remember the older page > and can tell you that the new one is a big step forward. It really > makes > Sage look like a professional project. > > Of course one can improve the page, but let's recognize that we're > starting from a cool page already and not do anything to move > backwards. > > On May 23, 3:43 pm, "Dr. David Kirkby" <david.kir...@onetel.net> > wrote: > > > Jason Grout wrote: > > > I think we have a very competent web designer that has done an > > > outstanding job (you should see the old web page!). I think what we > > > need now is marketing ideas! The big difference I see in a short glance > > > between the two pages is that the MMA one screams "I AM MATH SOFTWARE > > > AND YOU WANT TO USE ME! (and here's why you want to use me)", while the > > > Sage page says, "I am a piece of software you may be interested in; > > > here's lots of helpful information about me." > > > I think that pretty much sums it up. The Mathematica home page tells you > > why you want to use Mathematica. > > > But the Mathematica page is also much more aesthetically pleasing. The > > use of nice colours helps - I'm not convinced using only blue and black > > is a good idea. > > > The Mathematica logo is very attractive. I know one can dismiss these as > > irrelavant/unimportant, but I feel they give the impression the product > > is more professional. > > > I personally don't find the flash on the Mathematica site irritating > > (unlike some other sites that use flash), but I know it's not to > > everyone's taste. > > > >> I do feel the current Sage page gives the wrong impression. > > > >> It's clear one needs to be quite artistic in designing good looking web > > >> pages. It really is a specialist skill and not something likely to be > > >> had someone who studied maths. > > > > I think we (collectively) definitely have the technical competence on > > > board to implement whatever designs people come up with. I think we > > > (collectively) also have at least a decent amount of design experience > > > and taste. I think what we could use is a very experienced advertising > > > person (or lots of good marketing ideas). But I also get the impression > > > that that is basically what you are suggesting. > > > I am sure some marketing ideas could be taken from the Mathematica, > > Maple and MATLAB web pages. One might as well take the best ideas of > > these sites and use them. > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sage-devel-unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URLs: http://www.sagemath.org -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
