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
