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