Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive

[brian powell]

* The site looks great as it is.

** Its supposed to be simple and simple-looking:

*** Go to: http://orgmode.org =>

Read the top line: "Org: Your Life in Plain Text"

*** Go to: http://doc.norang.ca/org-mode.html =>

Read the top line: "Org Mode - Organize Your Life In Plain Text!"

* Simplicity and portability is a huge part of the point of OrgMode right!?

* EMACS and TeX and Texinfo, etc. are great (partially) because they have been ported to all platforms.

** So, if you make any changes, you should be able to convert the end webpages to Texinfo

so they are readable and printable on all computers and printers. 

--I just hope that whoever "wins the contest" creates web pages that are "501 compliant" and everyone can read on any computer using any operating system and browser and those webpages are as printable as a Texinfo document.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 12:43 PM, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa <address@hidden> wrote:

Hey guys,

Didn't mean to start any kind of flame.

@Nick: I'm not a designer, more of a hybrid coder with some design foundations, but I'm definitely willing to help. I don't like the current layout because of it's overuse of shadows and its "web1"-style layout. Also, typography could use some improvement, and we could also use a better screenshot, to give a better first impression. 

- Marcelo.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Nick Dokos <address@hidden> wrote:

Nick Dokos <address@hidden> wrote:

> Sankalp <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > --f46d044401de1e3ad604c6de28a7
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree with Marcelo.
> > --
> > Sankalp
> >
> > *******************************************************
> > If humans could mate with software, I'd have org-mode's
> > babies.
> >                           --- Chris League on Twitter.
> >                http://orgmode.org/worg/org-quotes.html
> > *******************************************************
> >
> >
> > On 10 August 2012 04:44, Jude DaShiell <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Good, that probably means it's one of the more accessible and usable web
> > > sites on the internet.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey list,
> > > >
> > > > Don't want to be negative, but doesn't anyone else also think the current
> > > > design is kind of amateurish and not very attractive? I also did not like
> > > > the screenshot used, I preferred the previous one, it showed more org
> > > > capabilities, and the colors and indentation looked better.
> > > >
> > > > My two cents and food for thought,
> > > >
>
> Talk is cheap: how would you improve it? And I don't mean generalities: build
> a website as you think it should be and then invite us over to take a look.
> And  as Jude suggests, don't forget to keep accessibility/usability issues
> in mind as you design.
>
> Nick
>

It has been pointed out to me that my comments might be taken as
"overbearing".  Not my intent, but I will take back the "talk is
cheap" part (or repeat it to myself as the target this time) and
apologize for it: I should have reread the mail before hitting send.

But the larger point is still there: "I don't like it" is a legitimate
response, but is not nearly as helpful as giving a list of reasons
of *why* you don't like it. And providing something you *like* is even
better. E.g. would the current design with the previous screen shot be
OK? Or are there deeper problems?

Nick