Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
Op vr, 16-06-2006 te 19:40 +0200, schreef Niel Drummond: Flash is a good deal faster than Java, doesn't have the client-side security nightmare involved, it doesn't take a team of 50 to develop a small app, the binary is an open standard (with plenty of open source tools available), there's an open-source alternative player available, and there's an extremely fast open-source compiler available (called MTASC), which is better than the original. Don't diss it. Flash is an open standard? You must be joking... There is a specification for recent flash file formats, but its license expressly forbids writing a flash player. Only creating or changing flash files is allowed under certain conditions. -- Jan Claeys -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
On 6/15/06, Jan Claeys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I prefer the Novell one: it's basic and points to all/most of the important stuff, while the redhat site is very busy, and their menus are half-unreadable (which is not surprising if you look at their style-sheets). And I hate (semi-)unreadable sites, sorry. ;-) The RedHat site doesn't even display right here in Epiphany, probably due to font settings. However, the Novell website set off the WTF-o-meter. They're using _flash_ on a linux page. Even worse, they only use it to change the background of a button on rollover, something easily doable in CSS that works with (basically) any browser that's been released since 2000 or so. -- Travis Watkins http://www.realistanew.com -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
Hello, The RedHat site doesn't even display right here in Epiphany, [...], something easily doable in CSS that works with (basically) any browser that's been released since 2000 or so. Agree. I vote for not getting inspired by those shame :) Étienne. -- Verso l'Alto ! -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
On Fri, 2006-06-16 at 03:55 -0500, Travis Watkins wrote: On 6/15/06, Jan Claeys [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Personally, I prefer the Novell one: it's basic and points to all/most of the important stuff, while the redhat site is very busy, and their menus are half-unreadable (which is not surprising if you look at their style-sheets). And I hate (semi-)unreadable sites, sorry. ;-) The RedHat site doesn't even display right here in Epiphany, probably due to font settings. However, the Novell website set off the WTF-o-meter. They're using _flash_ on a linux page. Even worse, they only use it to change the background of a button on rollover, something easily doable in CSS that works with (basically) any browser that's been released since 2000 or so. The Novell site is actually, in my opinion quite good, but definitely could be improved. Although I disagree with the use of flash in general, note that novell.com/linux and the main page were probably designed for a target audience of people who are considering using Linux for their businesses so chances are they are considering moving from a Windows or Mac solution. The use of the flash is quite redundant, agree. What they are doing there with those three tabbed links could be easily done with CSS, though for corporate websites the designers usually design the CSS once and then change content, images and flash from then onwards as apposed to adding further CSS styling. Oh, and Epiphany works fine with Redhat.com :) Cheers, Pascal -- Travis Watkins http://www.realistanew.com signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
[ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
Hey everybody, I recently had another look at the main page design of Ubuntu.com, which I don't really do often, and realized that it went through a bit of a redesign since I last checked there. I think that some of the things that are different should be changed, however. I'm not sure who's maintaining it, but maybe he could consider some of the changes that I'd like to propose: http://thingmajig.org/tmp/ubuntuhomepage_proposal.png First of all, I didn't really like the mini navigation at the top of the page. It's usually a good way of giving the user some basic navigation, but the current page design wasn't really created with that sort of navigation in mind, and as a result, it makes the page look a little awkward. I've omitted that part of the design altogether until we figure out a better way to put such basic navigation available on the page. Secondly, I think that it's not really a good idea to use the Ubuntu-title font for anything other than official product names. This is because the font shouldn't become too commonplace and because it's still got a few problems such as the numbers that totally dwarf the undercase letters and the inability to use capitals (such as for the LTS). Lastly, I've done some minor fixes on some parts of the layout, such as the related projects logos not being perfectly lined up, the edges of the grey background of the navigation at the top-right not being anti-aliased, the typography being stretched/squished (which is a pretty bad thing to do), and the main page text not having any kind of an intro (I added the part in bold, the text for it comes from the Dapper CD design). Personally, I think that this looks okay. I do agree that we need to add a different kind of navigation into this site in the future to make people be able to get to the core part easily. It doesn't need to be the same kind of thing that's on there right now at the top of the page, though. Let it be known if you agree or disagree with these propositions. I think that these changes are a good start in any case. Michiel -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
On 6/14/06, Michiel Sikma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://thingmajig.org/tmp/ubuntuhomepage_proposal.pngThe trouble with getting rid of the new navigation box along the top is that it's got a bunch of links in it that exist nowhere else on the page. OTOH, I do agree with you that the box w/ the definition of Ubuntu in it - the one in the lower-left corner - should be redone for better anti-aliasing generally cleaner look.Proposing this on Sounder might get more feedback than here, too. Brian/Madpilot -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
Op 15-jun-2006, om 9:04 heeft Brian Burger het volgende geschreven: On 6/14/06, Michiel Sikma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://thingmajig.org/tmp/ubuntuhomepage_proposal.png The trouble with getting rid of the new navigation box along the top is that it's got a bunch of links in it that exist nowhere else on the page. That's true, and we need to find a new place for those links. I don't think that it's a good idea to keep them in that nav, however, because I feel that it's a poorly designed one that disturbs the layout of the page. It also has images in it that consist of upscaled rasterized icons (upscaling is a big no) and don't have anti-aliased corners. In my opinion, it's best to remove it for now (and put the links in the navigation to the top-right after renaming them to be representative without an image, maybe). Proposing this on Sounder might get more feedback than here, too. Sounder is a general purpose mailing list, right? I don't think that it's really necessary to discuss this outside of the art mailing list, but feel free to forward it if you think they'll be able to give good feedback too. Michiel -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
On 6/15/06, Michiel Sikma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everybody, I recently had another look at the main page design of Ubuntu.com, which I don't really do often, and realized that it went through a bit of a redesign since I last checked there. I think that some of the things that are different should be changed, however. I'm not sure who's maintaining it, but maybe he could consider some of the changes that I'd like to propose: Henrik has been doing this job, and even though it's not what he was trained to do, I feel he's done excellent work. Canonical recently had a job opening for a webmaster, but the job listing has been removed, which suggests that the job has been filled. http://thingmajig.org/tmp/ubuntuhomepage_proposal.png First of all, I didn't really like the mini navigation at the top of the page. It's usually a good way of giving the user some basic navigation, but the current page design wasn't really created with that sort of navigation in mind, and as a result, it makes the page look a little awkward. Are you referring to the tabs, or the four blocks? Secondly, I think that it's not really a good idea to use the Ubuntu-title font for anything other than official product names. This is because the font shouldn't become too commonplace and because it's still got a few problems such as the numbers that totally dwarf the undercase letters and the inability to use capitals (such as for the LTS). The LTS looks capitalized to me. Also, I don't think it looks great to switch from a rounded font to an angular font for just the letters LTS. Lastly, I've done some minor fixes on some parts of the layout, such as the related projects logos not being perfectly lined up, the edges of the grey background of the navigation at the top-right not being anti-aliased, the typography being stretched/squished (which is a pretty bad thing to do), and the main page text not having any kind of an intro (I added the part in bold, the text for it comes from the Dapper CD design). I think it's important to get people to their destination as quickly as possible. Many websites tend to be content heavy with a wall of text. I feel the current design has improved drastically on this from previous versions of the site. I still feel the site is very text heavy on the home page however. Case in point, two sites that produce a competing product, provide scads of information to a variety of people who all seek different things and do an excellent job of making the home page engaging, informative and easy to navigate are apple and Microsoft (although apple's website doesn't look nearly as good with the I'm a mac advertisement right on front - previous versions were much better). Both of these sites provide links to tons of information, but the homepages only contain minimal information... everything points deeper into the site. I think the benefit of this is that people come to the site for many different reasons. You're never going to be able to satisfy all or even most of those people with the home page alone... instead, you need to send them out to different pages that can thoroughly help each in their own unique way. For example, contrast the needs of a person wanting to download the cd to a person trying to get their network card working. The following statement is probably controversial, and I'm not willing to say that it is absolutely true, but I think it is so. I doubt many people come to the Ubunutu.com homepage and wonder what is ubuntu? I'll bet they're thinking something like, my friend says Ubunutu is great, I want to try it, or, I want to learn how to XYZ. I'm not saying the what is Ubuntu question shouldn't be answered, it just doesn't need to be answered with such great detail on the home page. Personally, I think that this looks okay. I do agree that we need to add a different kind of navigation into this site in the future to make people be able to get to the core part easily. I agree. I would go so far as to say that the home page is all about navigation. It's also OK if the home page uses a different (but synergistic) navigation scheme than the rest of the site. Let it be known if you agree or disagree with these propositions. I think that these changes are a good start in any case. I like the way you used the font on the Ubnutu is... blurb and I also like the way you made the image big and bold. Your design isn't bad, but it is more of the same thing that has been there for a while. By the way, also contrast the RedHat home page and Novell's Suse Linux home page. www.redhat.com www.novell.com/linux/ Doesn't the novell website make you just want to go to sleep, or go to another website? Add conversely, doesn't the redhat website feel vibrant and full of energy? I think the Ubunutu website should definitely shy away from the sleepy image. I don't know what the mood of the Canonical marketing department is, but I don't think it's the shameless self promotion that characterizes
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
Matthew Nuzum wrote: On 6/15/06, Michiel Sikma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hey everybody, I recently had another look at the main page design of Ubuntu.com, which I don't really do often, and realized that it went through a bit of a redesign since I last checked there. I think that some of the things that are different should be changed, however. I'm not sure who's maintaining it, but maybe he could consider some of the changes that I'd like to propose: Henrik has been doing this job, and even though it's not what he was trained to do, I feel he's done excellent work. Canonical recently had a job opening for a webmaster, but the job listing has been removed, which suggests that the job has been filled. That, or it's expected that the community will take care of it properly. I'm not certain. Does being a webmaster imply that you also make designs? http://thingmajig.org/tmp/ubuntuhomepage_proposal.png First of all, I didn't really like the mini navigation at the top of the page. It's usually a good way of giving the user some basic navigation, but the current page design wasn't really created with that sort of navigation in mind, and as a result, it makes the page look a little awkward. Are you referring to the tabs, or the four blocks? The four blocks. Secondly, I think that it's not really a good idea to use the Ubuntu-title font for anything other than official product names. This is because the font shouldn't become too commonplace and because it's still got a few problems such as the numbers that totally dwarf the undercase letters and the inability to use capitals (such as for the LTS). The LTS looks capitalized to me. Also, I don't think it looks great to switch from a rounded font to an angular font for just the letters LTS. I'm not sure which font the LTS letters are in. It's not the Ubuntu-title font, since it doesn't seem to contain any capitals. I still don't think that it's a good thing to use the Ubuntu-title font for anything besides the logo. It just isn't really a good general-purpose font. It looks great on the logos, though. But the logo title font should be important enough to be reserved for official artwork and not just tossed around. That decreases its value. Lastly, I've done some minor fixes on some parts of the layout, such as the related projects logos not being perfectly lined up, the edges of the grey background of the navigation at the top-right not being anti-aliased, the typography being stretched/squished (which is a pretty bad thing to do), and the main page text not having any kind of an intro (I added the part in bold, the text for it comes from the Dapper CD design). I think it's important to get people to their destination as quickly as possible. Many websites tend to be content heavy with a wall of text. I feel the current design has improved drastically on this from previous versions of the site. I wholeheartedly agree with that! The Ubuntu site has been a wall of text for a long time, and that's not really something people like to browse or read through. It's definitely so that there's a lot of text on the site and that it doesn't look very inviting. (I omitted some of the rest of your mail because I agree with it and have no commentary.) Let it be known if you agree or disagree with these propositions. I think that these changes are a good start in any case. I like the way you used the font on the Ubnutu is... blurb and I also like the way you made the image big and bold. Your design isn't bad, but it is more of the same thing that has been there for a while. I too think that the main page needs a big redesign, but this design I sent in was more of a way to roll back until we figure out what the best way to do that is. Truthfully, I'd rather see the main page rolled back to what it was before (or to my version) as a temporary measure. The things I mentioned (such as the upscaled pictures used in the top block navigation, which look awful, as well as the insane saturation contrast on the letters that it uses, as well as the stretched typography et cetera) are, in my opinion, bad enough to warrant a revert. By the way, also contrast the RedHat home page and Novell's Suse Linux home page. www.redhat.com www.novell.com/linux/ Doesn't the novell website make you just want to go to sleep, or go to another website? Add conversely, doesn't the redhat website feel vibrant and full of energy? I haven't looked at the Novell site in a while, and you're right. It feels half-done. It's very empty and there's too much text in there. Red Hat's site is awesome. Ubuntu would have to go through a MAJOR redesign if it were to be able to have such a nice navigation, though. I have ideas for a better site which I'd like to present in the future. I think the Ubunutu website should definitely shy away from the sleepy image. I don't know what the mood of the Canonical marketing department is, but I don't think it's
Re: [ubuntu-art] Main page discussion
Op do, 15-06-2006 te 10:44 -0500, schreef Matthew Nuzum: By the way, also contrast the RedHat home page and Novell's Suse Linux home page. www.redhat.com www.novell.com/linux/ Doesn't the novell website make you just want to go to sleep, or go to another website? Add conversely, doesn't the redhat website feel vibrant and full of energy? Personally, I prefer the Novell one: it's basic and points to all/most of the important stuff, while the redhat site is very busy, and their menus are half-unreadable (which is not surprising if you look at their style-sheets). And I hate (semi-)unreadable sites, sorry. ;-) -- Jan Claeys -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
