Er... Thanks folks for your input. As the website will be rolled out
next week, and that we requested this kind of feedback since, well,
3 months for some elements in 3 weeks for the final results, I suggest
you, the design team, work on a later version of the website later this
year and incorporate the elements that have been listed below.
We would have hoped for your input much earlier in the process, now
it's a bit too late for that.
Thanks,
Charles.
Le Fri, 31 Jan 2014 19:13:49 +0100,
Stefan Knorr heinzless...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi all,
so, first, I really like the new page, especially the fact that it is
now responsive and looks much more modern. Lato is a nice font, too.
And it finally feels a bit more personal than the current page which
presents pretty models as our community.
just to voice a few things of my own...
On 25 January 2014 12:20, bitigçi bitig...@me.com wrote:
I wonder why the current shade of green which is already hosted on
the splash screen and wiki page? This one is too much dark and
without proper border gradients it looks like it's from 90s. Again,
this is needed for compatibility in all LO web and software
platforms. Seriously, why the need for a change? Splash screen
green shade is very easy on the eyes, and it is good looking. But
this one with white text is not the perfect choice.
Right. The problem is that the splash screen green was not part of our
palette before 4.0. And compared to the rest of the palette, it does
look that way, too.
On the other hand, I also understand your criticism -- the green is
indeed pretty harsh. For me, it still works, though. (However, putting
that green in the splash screen again though will not allow for being
subtle. And yes, since our branding story should be aligned from
product to website at some point, we would have to think about this.
That said, if we're using that dark green, it would be much better to
use it for text logo instead of the background.)
Anyway... One thing that does not work is using small black text on
dark green. It doesn't contrast well at all. Also, it reminds me of
this:
http://static.gamespot.com/uploads/scale_medium/mig/6/2/6/1/2236261-XboxOne1_20201_screen.jpg
;) Wonder why they went with that -- It's actually much worse on a
real-life poster.
Also white text on white background is a no-no, it's literally an
eye-killer.
I guess you should explain where on the page that was -- I couldn't
find it.
Menus on top should be opened automatically on mouse hover, it's the
standard gesture in all websites.
+1. Also, hovering works with CSS only, for clickable menus you need
JS. This means that currently, when disabling JS in the browser, the
menu is needlessly broken. (It won't matter for the mobile page, as
you can't disable JS in mobile browsers anyway.)
Also as different people already stated above, this website needs
nice screenshots with feature explanations, no one cares about what
kind of sacred mission LibreOffice has, people need a software that
works.
Yep. Marketing to the 10 % (or less) of people that care about the
whole open-source community aspect is very important, but marketing
to the other 90 % shouldn't be completely left aside..
On a similar note: the footer communicates to me that this community
is just overkilling it socially. Nobody cares, and nobody actually
wants two Twitter feeds to load at the bottom of every page (consider
page load times etc.).
Same with the follow us thing -- two Twitter links, fine. Five? Why?
Also, the presence of this bar could be reduced a little (smaller
headline on the same line as the icons maybe?).
A few other things:
+ Some mentioned the Get Involved page and the carousel there: I
personally don't think this makes any sense. There is a limited number
(they are not changing every week) of items and people are probably
only interested in one or two very specific things. So, the page
should allow for selecting a career path without having to wait for
the slides to animate through or clicking through all slides which is
cumbersome.
+ Why is the header LibreOffice logo grey? (That is actually not a
colour sanctioned in the brand guide, white is allowed)
+ The text baseline between the top logo and the top menu items seems
a little off (on Windows) maybe you could correct that.
+ The font on the Download Now button on the homepage is wrong (should
probably be Lato, but is Arial). Also, worse, it still lies and only
links to the download page. See Mozilla.org for how it should be (they
test(ed) this workflow _very_ meticulously, even down to comparing the
effectiveness of different colours): http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/
(button links right to download, button has all the most important
information)
Best regards,
Astron.
--
Charles-H. Schulz
Co-founder, The Document Foundation,
Kurfürstendamm 188, 10707 Berlin
Gemeinnützige
