On Mon, 2010-11-08 at 20:54 -0500, John Baer wrote: > http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1066/5159498235_00fb7974c8_b.jpg > > Thoughts?
Graphically, these are much better. Though, on ubuntu.com, the pictograms are kept in orange. But what you have here are illustrations, not statusicons that indicate the presence or lack of unread posts, plus whether there is a single forum page or set of forums (called a category). (At least I guess the read/unread thing applies to Category icons, too.) In any case, I see a problem of weighting: the icons look like they would be the most important thing in the body area, by far. That's why I used rather small stars on http://www.foopics.com/showfull/24cab922804efd5587f7d8d6109d168a These rather simple and symmetric don't call for attention so much. The Category titles/links are "marked" by the lack of stars! BTW, I noticed the light gray for the forum is #f7f6f5. It should be #f7f7f7, like used on ubuntu.com. -- Thorsten Wilms thorwil's design for free software: http://thorwil.wordpress.com/ -- ubuntu-art mailing list ubuntu-art@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-art
