Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 20:33:18 +0300 From: George Danchev <danchev@spnet.net> To: freebsd-www@freebsd.org Subject: Re: new web site - bring back the old one Message-ID: <200510152033.18955.danchev@spnet.net> In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.63.0510151155290.96402@manganese.bos.dyndns.org> References: <4350D8D9.4040303@mail.ru> <200510151649.03865.danchev@spnet.net> <Pine.BSF.4.63.0510151155290.96402@manganese.bos.dyndns.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Saturday 15 October 2005 19:01, Tim Wilde wrote: > On Sat, 15 Oct 2005, George Danchev wrote: > > Also seconded. That have been said way too many times by way too many > > people... nothing happend yet. Patches, comments and examples for the > > matter of that were not even being discussed [1]. So do not even try to > > check it out on any high resolution screens. Smash your high-res laptops, > > and your brand new 16:9 24in screeny if you happend to have any ;-) > > I don't understand what you're talking about a huge gap of whitespace. > I'm looking at it at 1600x1200 without any such "huge gap". I see maybe > 20 pixels, and it does a good job of separating the sections of the page. Really ? do you see the small lonely square filled with junk in the middle ? Since currently the layout/css/layout.css uses fixed px values calibrated to fulfil 800x600's you start losing both sides space at any higher res. E.g. the site is not kept proportionable btw various res, which leads of course to various ratios between objects at various res. Percentages should be used for defining linears instead, but it seems it has never been designed and then calculated, but put together by chance. You do not need to be high profile webmaster, that's basic math you should know about. Also looks inconsitent it at wide screens, such as 16:9. > I think it's a far more professional looking and useful website than the > old one. As many of the developers who've worked on it have said, the old > one was hideously over-cluttered, and had absolutely none of the qualities > one looks for in a usable user interface. I could NEVER find the > handbook, FAQ, or mailing list links on the old page, now they're quick > and easy to find. They will guide people clicking thru the links for good anyway ;-) http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-www/2005-October/003021.html > If you hate having to click on multiple links so much, bookmark the > sections that you use the most, and then you'll have the information right > in front of you. The information is organized in a logical manner, it's > really not that hard to find, if you ignore the fact that the search > engine is next to useless (which hasn't changed from the old design, and > is being discussed). > > The homepage of a web site is not designed for power users or people who > use that site frequently, at least not as its first audience. The first > audience of a web site's homepage is NEW users, people who have never been > to the site before, or who do not use it frequently, and the new design > does a FAR better job than the old one of helping those users get into the > site, and into FreeBSD. In that regard, I think it does its job > perfectly. Power/newbie classifications are always vicious. Just make it satisfy as much as possible. But having such relative-unfriendly designs I should admit that putting more content in there make things look more as wreckage... -- pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu> fingerprint 1AE7 7C66 0A26 5BFF DF22 5D55 1C57 0C89 0E4B D0AB
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200510152033.18955.danchev>