Login | Register For Free | Help
Search for: (Advanced)

Mailing List Archive: ModPerl: Docs-dev

more noise, but less confined

 

 

ModPerl docs-dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded


lambretta at inet

Jan 21, 2002, 7:32 AM

Post #1 of 13 (1046 views)
Permalink
more noise, but less confined

hello


i have uploaded yet a design (one page) for
inspiration/comments, where some of the recent comments has
been included.


http://www.bullitt.suite.dk/div/download/binaries.html


these are new/old ideas/feats:

- no html tables
- html 100% valid as per W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional
- css 100% valid (i think)
- all fonts are relative using ems (all fonts are also now
rather small)
- base font is verdana
- body bgcolor is white (a very light gray might work)
- no horizontal scrollbar
- optimized for min. 800x600 resolution
- no borders around content box and generally more white space
- menu-text centered (this looks strangely enough better IMO)
- a dead download widget suggestion, sort of
- link colors kept ASF


because the fonts are now relative, things might/will look
very different on different set-ups. please try and change
browser font-sizes to see for yourself if things look huge
or way too small.


browser summary:
- ns6.2 (mac) +1
- ie5 (mac) +1
- opera 5+ (mac) +1
- ns4+ (mac) +1 (apart from commode menu)
- useable without stylesheets +1


./allan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


thomas at stderr

Jan 21, 2002, 8:47 AM

Post #2 of 13 (1039 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 10:32:55PM +0800, allan wrote:
> hello
>
>
> i have uploaded yet a design (one page) for
> inspiration/comments, where some of the recent comments has
> been included.
>
>
> http://www.bullitt.suite.dk/div/download/binaries.html

Looks pretty!

> these are new/old ideas/feats:
>
> - no html tables
> - html 100% valid as per W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional
> - css 100% valid (i think)

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bullitt.suite.dk%2Fdiv%2Fdownload%2Fstyle.css&warning=1&profile=css2

It is indeed valid.

> - all fonts are relative using ems (all fonts are also now
> rather small)
> - base font is verdana
> - body bgcolor is white (a very light gray might work)
> - no horizontal scrollbar
> - optimized for min. 800x600 resolution
> - no borders around content box and generally more white space
> - menu-text centered (this looks strangely enough better IMO)
> - a dead download widget suggestion, sort of
> - link colors kept ASF
>
>
> because the fonts are now relative, things might/will look
> very different on different set-ups. please try and change
> browser font-sizes to see for yourself if things look huge
> or way too small.
>
>
> browser summary:
> - ns6.2 (mac) +1
> - ie5 (mac) +1
> - opera 5+ (mac) +1
> - ns4+ (mac) +1 (apart from commode menu)
> - useable without stylesheets +1

mozilla 0.9.7 +1

--
Thomas Eibner <http://thomas.eibner.dk/> DnsZone <http://dnszone.org/>
mod_pointer <http://stderr.net/mod_pointer>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


thomas at stderr

Jan 21, 2002, 8:50 AM

Post #3 of 13 (1031 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2002 at 04:47:32PM +0100, Thomas Eibner wrote:
> > browser summary:
> > - ns6.2 (mac) +1
> > - ie5 (mac) +1
> > - opera 5+ (mac) +1
> > - ns4+ (mac) +1 (apart from commode menu)
> > - useable without stylesheets +1
>
> mozilla 0.9.7 +1

on Linux that is.

--
Thomas Eibner <http://thomas.eibner.dk/> DnsZone <http://dnszone.org/>
mod_pointer <http://stderr.net/mod_pointer>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


netmaster at digital-word

Jan 21, 2002, 8:50 AM

Post #4 of 13 (1031 views)
Permalink
RE: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

:: i have uploaded yet a design (one page) for
:: inspiration/comments, where some of the recent comments has
:: been included.

Allan, it's great. Works perfectly with IE6 and NS6 on Win2K. Looks
really clean and neat. Have we finally got a design that fits the bill?


Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


moseley at hank

Jan 21, 2002, 8:56 AM

Post #5 of 13 (1032 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

At 10:32 PM 01/21/02 +0800, allan wrote:
>i have uploaded yet a design (one page) for
>inspiration/comments, where some of the recent comments has
>been included.
>
>
>http://www.bullitt.suite.dk/div/download/binaries.html

Looks like hell in NS4x. I tried to get a screen image by I have machines
falling apart all around. Now my Win98 machine's samba networking isn't
working, so I'll attach the image. Sorry.

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but is all this work to get the design
without tables really worth it? Will the majority of people that visit the
site care that much how the content is delivered? It's great idea, but
have enough people caught up to the Standards to use them in January of 2002?


>these are new/old ideas/feats:

Allan, you are doing a fantastic job trying to fit all these features in at
the same time. It's a tough job!

>- no html tables
>- html 100% valid as per W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional
>- css 100% valid (i think)
>- all fonts are relative using ems (all fonts are also now
>rather small)
>- base font is verdana
>- body bgcolor is white (a very light gray might work)
>- no horizontal scrollbar
>- optimized for min. 800x600 resolution
>- no borders around content box and generally more white space
>- menu-text centered (this looks strangely enough better IMO)
>- a dead download widget suggestion, sort of
>- link colors kept ASF
>
>
>because the fonts are now relative, things might/will look
>very different on different set-ups. please try and change
>browser font-sizes to see for yourself if things look huge
>or way too small.
>
>
>browser summary:
>- ns6.2 (mac) +1
>- ie5 (mac) +1
>- opera 5+ (mac) +1
>- ns4+ (mac) +1 (apart from commode menu)
>- useable without stylesheets +1
Attachments: ns4.gif (23.1 KB)


stas at stason

Jan 21, 2002, 9:55 AM

Post #6 of 13 (1031 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

allan wrote:

> hello
>
>
> i have uploaded yet a design (one page) for
> inspiration/comments, where some of the recent comments has
> been included.
>
>
> http://www.bullitt.suite.dk/div/download/binaries.html


very nice!

linux
-----
NS4.79 +0.9 (the borders are still missing)
konqueror +0.99 (the scrollbar bug is there)
opera +1
lynx +0.9
links +1

in lynx the menu is stuck with breadcrumb and the rest, need to do some
new lines. (<p>?) also need to do the same before TOP. (lynx is the text
browser)

Thomas has already mentioned that mozilla/0.9.7 linux is fine.

All the features are cool (snipped), but these:

> - body bgcolor is white (a very light gray might work)

> - no borders around content box and generally more white space

this page design looses the focus of the content box. If you put the
older design and this one next to each other, you will probably see that
the older one is easier to read.

In fact when I first saw your new design, I didn't like it at all, now I
realize that this was because I felt lost in the page. Now I see that
it's good, but the content box and contrasting bg are definitely making
the pages harder to read.

Take a simple usability test and let someone who is not working on this
design to judge, even a non-computer person will do. It's even a better
choice. My hunch is that the older design will win. But do try the test.

> - menu-text centered (this looks strangely enough better IMO)


I think this is not user-friendly. An English speaking person's eye is
accustomed to read left to right, so by centralizing the menu you create
an obstacle.

> - a dead download widget suggestion, sort of


This steals too much of the vertical space. I think that trying to put the

download widget in the same line with prev|next is a better idea. Also
remember that we will have a search link (which will take users directly
to the search of the current doc). So I believe that packing these into
one widget with big spaces between will make a great navigation function.

[pdf|src] [search] [prev|up|next]

to end my criticism...Great work, Allan!
_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


lambretta at inet

Jan 21, 2002, 10:09 PM

Post #7 of 13 (1033 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

hi stas


Stas Bekman wrote:
> All the features are cool (snipped), but these:
>
> > - body bgcolor is white (a very light gray might work)
>
> > - no borders around content box and generally more white space
>
> this page design looses the focus of the content box. If you put the
> older design and this one next to each other, you will probably see that
> the older one is easier to read.

> In fact when I first saw your new design, I didn't like it at all, now I
> realize that this was because I felt lost in the page. Now I see that
> it's good, but the content box and contrasting bg are definitely making
> the pages harder to read.

<!-- eh, you mean the content box and contrasting bg [of
the original design] are definitely making the pages
_easier_ to read, right? -->

well, granted, the content looses a little focus beeing
box-border-less. i dont mind that at all. in fact i regard
it as feature (!). when i surf a site (that i have never
visited before) the most important thing focus-wise for me
is in a way not the content but the navigation.
can you follow me? i mean, there is no way (in either
design) that you feel lost (navigation-wise) at anytime - on
the contrary.

so from a user-friendly perspective i think this design is in
fact better because focus is withdrawn fron the content.
no-one in the world would (in either design) be uncertain of
what is content and what is navigation and what is ad(-ons).
some sites have so many boxes that its hard to seperate
functionality sometimes.


> Take a simple usability test and let someone who is not working on this
> design to judge, even a non-computer person will do. It's even a better
> choice. My hunch is that the older design will win. But do try the test.

ok, ill see what i can do.


> > - menu-text centered (this looks strangely enough better IMO)
>
> I think this is not user-friendly. An English speaking person's eye is
> accustomed to read left to right, so by centralizing the menu you create
> an obstacle.

yes, it probably is not user-friendly but on the other hand
not exactly hostile either :-)
its not like the menu takes up a lot of words and space. to
me this particular issue wrt the menu is a very small sacrifice.
btw, if you turn off stylesheets its in fact more
user-friendly than the original design IMO.


> I think that trying to put the
> download widget in the same line with prev|next is a better idea. Also
> remember that we will have a search link (which will take users directly
> to the search of the current doc). So I believe that packing these into
> one widget with big spaces between will make a great navigation function.
>
> [pdf|src] [search] [prev|up|next]


yes, sounds cool.
but pretty hard (impossible) to do without using tables or a
fixed-sized space between the functions. i imagine the above:

[pdf|src] left-aligned
[search] centered
[prev|up|next] right-aligned

or the whole bar right-aligned and fixed space:

|topbar span |
....[pdf|src] 150px [search] 150px [prev|up|next]


the first choice looks best.


./allan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


stas at stason

Jan 21, 2002, 11:23 PM

Post #8 of 13 (1037 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

allan wrote:

> hi stas
>
>
> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>All the features are cool (snipped), but these:
>>
>>
>>>- body bgcolor is white (a very light gray might work)
>>>
>> > - no borders around content box and generally more white space
>>
>>this page design looses the focus of the content box. If you put the
>>older design and this one next to each other, you will probably see that
>>the older one is easier to read.
>>
>
>>In fact when I first saw your new design, I didn't like it at all, now I
>>realize that this was because I felt lost in the page. Now I see that
>>it's good, but the content box and contrasting bg are definitely making
>>the pages harder to read.
>>
>
> <!-- eh, you mean the content box and contrasting bg [of
> the original design] are definitely making the pages
> _easier_ to read, right? -->


IMHO, yes.


> well, granted, the content looses a little focus beeing
> box-border-less. i dont mind that at all. in fact i regard
> it as feature (!). when i surf a site (that i have never
> visited before) the most important thing focus-wise for me
> is in a way not the content but the navigation.
> can you follow me? i mean, there is no way (in either
> design) that you feel lost (navigation-wise) at anytime - on
> the contrary.


true, if you navigate a lot. This is not the case with perl.apache.org
-- here you spend most of the time sitting in one place and reading the
docs. Remember this is not a shopping cart kind of site.

We want to have the best experience for people using our site. And most
users will spend their time in /docs

Moreover since the amount of documentation is huge and growing,
navigation will be hardly used at all inside /docs, because most users
will use search to get to the item they want.

Once I reach the item that I want to read, I want to keep focused on it.


> so from a user-friendly perspective i think this design is in
> fact better because focus is withdrawn fron the content.
> no-one in the world would (in either design) be uncertain of
> what is content and what is navigation and what is ad(-ons).
> some sites have so many boxes that its hard to seperate
> functionality sometimes.


I guess it all depends on your definition of user-friendly-ness, placed
into the certain context. Remember that we don't try to design a generic
site, but a special purpose site.


>>>- menu-text centered (this looks strangely enough better IMO)
>>>
>>I think this is not user-friendly. An English speaking person's eye is
>>accustomed to read left to right, so by centralizing the menu you create
>>an obstacle.
>>
>
> yes, it probably is not user-friendly but on the other hand
> not exactly hostile either :-)
> its not like the menu takes up a lot of words and space. to
> me this particular issue wrt the menu is a very small sacrifice.
> btw, if you turn off stylesheets its in fact more
> user-friendly than the original design IMO.


But why? because it looks fancier? Why do you want users to turn CSS off?


>>I think that trying to put the
>>download widget in the same line with prev|next is a better idea. Also
>>remember that we will have a search link (which will take users directly
>>to the search of the current doc). So I believe that packing these into
>>one widget with big spaces between will make a great navigation function.
>>
>>[pdf|src] [search] [prev|up|next]
>>
>
>
> yes, sounds cool.
> but pretty hard (impossible) to do without using tables or a
> fixed-sized space between the functions. i imagine the above:
>
> [pdf|src] left-aligned
> [search] centered
> [prev|up|next] right-aligned
>
> or the whole bar right-aligned and fixed space:
>
> |topbar span |
> ....[pdf|src] 150px [search] 150px [prev|up|next]
>
>
> the first choice looks best.


agreed, any fixed sizes are bad in the long run.

May be I lost part of the tablelessness track, but I thought that the
point was not to use tables for page layout. Does this widget fall into
the same category? If not tables can perfectly fit here, no?

BTW, getting back to the depth issues, look at this site:
http://www.google.com/services/free.html

They use a 3d image to create a feeling of vollume and they still have a
very thing vertical bar to separate the content from the navigation

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


lambretta at inet

Jan 22, 2002, 2:37 AM

Post #9 of 13 (1028 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

Stas Bekman wrote:

> > well, granted, the content looses a little focus beeing
> > box-border-less. i dont mind that at all. in fact i regard
> > it as feature (!). when i surf a site (that i have never
> > visited before) the most important thing focus-wise for me
> > is in a way not the content but the navigation.
> > can you follow me? i mean, there is no way (in either
> > design) that you feel lost (navigation-wise) at anytime - on
> > the contrary.
>
> true, if you navigate a lot. This is not the case with perl.apache.org
> -- here you spend most of the time sitting in one place and reading the
> docs.

but is that an argument for using boxes and contrasting bg?
if we had a lot of commerical crap flying around pur pages i
would agree but the very basic of our design is so simple -
you just start reading from a point and then downwards -
there are nothing distracting in your way - it just like a
normal word-document or whatever.
the way i see it we simply (basically) just have this:

- menu
- content area

everything in the content area is documentation, ie stuff
that people want to sit and _read_ and move inside. correct
me if im wrong, but i think if you take almost any
word-processing editor or text-editor or dtp-program (at
least for windows and macintosh) they will default have a
white background-color and a black default font - i reckon
there is a reason for this. the finished document from such
a word-proccesor will more often than not look close to our
design in the content area. a header (often centered), some
teaser text, base text with some headlines etc.


anyway, i think that you and i simply disagree on this and
if i cannot persuade you by a good design, then too bad.

i am working on a new design similar to the one from yesterday.

screenshot from ie5:
http://www.bullitt.suite.dk/div/download/Picture_34.gif

do you like any of those ideas - the bar-widget is not
finished ...

these are new/old ideas/feats:

- html tables (i give in)
- html 100% valid
- css 100% valid
- all fonts are relative using ems (all fonts are also now
rather small)
- base font is verdana
- body bgcolor is light gray
- no horizontal scrollbar
- optimized for min. 800x600 resolution
- borders around content box but not header
- menu-text centered
- a "broken" bar for search pdf|src next|prev
- link colors kept ASF



> We want to have the best experience for people using our site. And most
> users will spend their time in /docs
>
> Moreover since the amount of documentation is huge and growing,
> navigation will be hardly used at all inside /docs, because most users
> will use search to get to the item they want.
>
> Once I reach the item that I want to read, I want to keep focused on it.
>
> > so from a user-friendly perspective i think this design is in
> > fact better because focus is withdrawn fron the content.
> > no-one in the world would (in either design) be uncertain of
> > what is content and what is navigation and what is ad(-ons).
> > some sites have so many boxes that its hard to seperate
> > functionality sometimes.
>
> I guess it all depends on your definition of user-friendly-ness, placed
> into the certain context. Remember that we don't try to design a generic
> site, but a special purpose site.
>
> >>>- menu-text centered (this looks strangely enough better IMO)
> >>>
> >>I think this is not user-friendly. An English speaking person's eye is
> >>accustomed to read left to right, so by centralizing the menu you create
> >>an obstacle.
> >>
> >
> > yes, it probably is not user-friendly but on the other hand
> > not exactly hostile either :-)
> > its not like the menu takes up a lot of words and space. to
> > me this particular issue wrt the menu is a very small sacrifice.
> > btw, if you turn off stylesheets its in fact more
> > user-friendly than the original design IMO.
>
> But why? because it looks fancier?

centered text looks IMO fancier here yes (dont know why).
titles are also often centered, so people are used to
centered text from time to time.


> Why do you want users to turn CSS off?

no no no, not at all. but i guess some people do turn css
off, maybe for userbility reasons and _if_ they do turn it
off our design must still be ok.

./allan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


domm at zsi

Jan 22, 2002, 4:31 AM

Post #10 of 13 (1033 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

Hi!

On Tue, Jan 22, 2002 at 02:23:12PM +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
> > yes, sounds cool.
> > but pretty hard (impossible) to do without using tables or a
> > fixed-sized space between the functions. i imagine the above:
> May be I lost part of the tablelessness track, but I thought that the
> point was not to use tables for page layout. Does this widget fall into
> the same category? If not tables can perfectly fit here, no?
I'd say we can definitly use tables here. There /are/ uses for them, after
all.

--
D_OMM +----> http://domm.zsi.at <-----+
O_xyderkes | neu: Arbeitsplatz |
M_echanen | http://domm.zsi.at/d/d162.html |
M_asteuei +--------------------------------+



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


stas at stason

Jan 22, 2002, 4:53 AM

Post #11 of 13 (1028 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

allan wrote:

> Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>
>>>well, granted, the content looses a little focus beeing
>>>box-border-less. i dont mind that at all. in fact i regard
>>>it as feature (!). when i surf a site (that i have never
>>>visited before) the most important thing focus-wise for me
>>>is in a way not the content but the navigation.
>>>can you follow me? i mean, there is no way (in either
>>>design) that you feel lost (navigation-wise) at anytime - on
>>>the contrary.
>>>
>>true, if you navigate a lot. This is not the case with perl.apache.org
>>-- here you spend most of the time sitting in one place and reading the
>>docs.
>>
>
> but is that an argument for using boxes and contrasting bg?
> if we had a lot of commerical crap flying around pur pages i
> would agree but the very basic of our design is so simple -
> you just start reading from a point and then downwards -
> there are nothing distracting in your way - it just like a
> normal word-document or whatever.
> the way i see it we simply (basically) just have this:
>
> - menu
> - content area
>
> everything in the content area is documentation, ie stuff
> that people want to sit and _read_ and move inside. correct
> me if im wrong, but i think if you take almost any
> word-processing editor or text-editor or dtp-program (at
> least for windows and macintosh) they will default have a
> white background-color and a black default font - i reckon
> there is a reason for this. the finished document from such
> a word-proccesor will more often than not look close to our
> design in the content area. a header (often centered), some
> teaser text, base text with some headlines etc.


well you brought a good example to prove yourself wrong :) The word
processors have a separate box for the editing window. And the rest of
the navigation (tools in this case) are in separate physical boxes.
makes sense?

Of course in the case of the wordprocessor you don't need an extra bg
contrast, you already have a physical window! Though, they do put all
the tools onto a different background, very contrasting with the editing
window.

I don't necessarily think that word-processor is the same concept, but
you brought this on yourself :)


> anyway, i think that you and i simply disagree on this and
> if i cannot persuade you by a good design, then too bad.


Actually I don't try to disagree with you, I just think that making the
content stand-out helps.

I think the main point is that navigation should be there, but it's not
the purpose of the site. Therefore it shouldn't standout the same way
the content does.


> i am working on a new design similar to the one from yesterday.
>
> screenshot from ie5:
> http://www.bullitt.suite.dk/div/download/Picture_34.gif


looks good.


> do you like any of those ideas - the bar-widget is not
> finished ...


very neat! And as Thomas has commented, do use tables if you need.


>>>yes, it probably is not user-friendly but on the other hand
>>>not exactly hostile either :-)
>>>its not like the menu takes up a lot of words and space. to
>>>me this particular issue wrt the menu is a very small sacrifice.
>>>btw, if you turn off stylesheets its in fact more
>>>user-friendly than the original design IMO.
>>>
>>But why? because it looks fancier?
>>
>
> centered text looks IMO fancier here yes (dont know why).
> titles are also often centered, so people are used to
> centered text from time to time.


nope, this argument doesn't fit here :).

Titles are not coming immediately one after another, but separated with
at least one or more paragraphs of text. Therefore it's easy to read a
centralized title, because it's single. And usually you want people to
pause after reading it. That's why you use a bigger font for titles.

When you centralize a menu or any other number of subsequent lines of
varying length, you make the user work harder, since her eyes have to
scroll left and right to find the beginning of the line, leading to a
degradation of the use experience.

it's all physics :)


>>Why do you want users to turn CSS off?
>>
>
> no no no, not at all. but i guess some people do turn css
> off, maybe for userbility reasons and _if_ they do turn it
> off our design must still be ok.

I absolutely agree here. See my comments about lynx (text browser) in
one of the prev email, where we need to add new lines to separate the
menu and the content.

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


lambretta at inet

Jan 22, 2002, 6:56 AM

Post #12 of 13 (1041 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

hi stas,

[heavily snipped]
> I think the main point is that navigation should be there, but it's not
> the purpose of the site. Therefore it shouldn't standout the same way
> the content does.

on the other hand, if the navigation stands out its easy to
find what you want in the content area and that _is_ a major
purpose of the site, no? i would rather have a harder time
reading the documentation and still easily be able to find
my whereabouts than the other way around. (i am not saying
any of the designs live down to that - its just in the sense
of what is important to stand out visibly on our web-site)


i cant overcome more debating back and forth and i think im
getting "narrow"-minded in the way i would like to persuade
people to see the light - now i just like to be persuaded by
a brillant design :-), so im back to my editor ...


./allan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl


stas at stason

Jan 22, 2002, 9:17 AM

Post #13 of 13 (1032 views)
Permalink
Re: more noise, but less confined [In reply to]

allan wrote:


>>I think the main point is that navigation should be there, but it's not
>>the purpose of the site. Therefore it shouldn't standout the same way
>>the content does.
>>
>
> on the other hand, if the navigation stands out its easy to
> find what you want in the content area and that _is_ a major
> purpose of the site, no?


nope, the navigation doesn't help you at all to find a thing in the
content area once you've landed on the page you want to read. The only
useful navigation function at that moment is 'top' (and toc's index).

> i would rather have a harder time
> reading the documentation and still easily be able to find
> my whereabouts than the other way around. (i am not saying
> any of the designs live down to that - its just in the sense
> of what is important to stand out visibly on our web-site)


I think I know where your view is coming from -- you work with sample
pages which don't represent the reality. (but of course useful for
developing). On the opposite I'm always testing with real content.

If you look at the real pages (e.g. testing.html) you will realize that
you spend much more time with the content rather than navigation. And
our goal is to help mod_perl users to have an easy access and per-use of
the documentation, which as a side effect should reduce the number of
repetitive questions on the list. Of course the whole project was
started to make the navigation better. But still remember that on
perl.apache.org people spend 99% of their time reading, 1% navigating.


> i cant overcome more debating back and forth and i think im
> getting "narrow"-minded in the way i would like to persuade
> people to see the light - now i just like to be persuaded by
> a brillant design :-), so im back to my editor ...


:0)

You are doing a great work so far. Don't get discouraged by my comments,
I'm just telling what I think ;)

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

ModPerl docs-dev RSS feed   Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded
 
 


Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads
 
  Web Applications & Managed Hosting Powered by Gossamer Threads Inc.