Fellow Boosters, Well I must say I've been smiling all day :-) Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And I've been putting finishing touches on my design hopefully coming up with something everyone can enjoy. I have two different sample for you to gander at. The first is the simple clean version... http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm The second adds some background flair to the page... http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index_code.htm And for those with CSS switching browser, there's an alternate CSS on each of those which displays the page without any CSS. Just to show that everything is done in thee CSS ;-) Enjoy. Have a good weekend, and all that. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Fellow Boosters,
Well I must say I've been smiling all day :-) Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And I've been putting finishing touches on my design hopefully coming up with something everyone can enjoy.
I have two different sample for you to gander at. The first is the simple clean version...
I like it. The logo going down doesn't give the right impression though (IMO, Boost is not going down :-).
The second adds some background flair to the page...
Nope. Too busy. << Rene, I sent you an email that bounced (dunno why). I asked if you might want to tweak Spirit's site as well. >> Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
I like it. The logo going down doesn't give the right impression though (IMO, Boost is not going down :-).
Logos are the hardest thing to get just right :-\ Now that the I have the layout basically set I can work on making a logo that fits most comfortably in that space. It's not just a matter of rotating it... I need to keep in mind resizing and clipping. Oh the fun of web design, and one thinks writing portable C++ is hard ;-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Hmm.. Make the boost logo horizontal, that empty block of blue doesn't look good (imho). If you must keep the icons, make the text for them run right next to their icons and much bigger (took me more than a quick glance to find my way to the text). I dont like the second at all, the cluttered background doesn't go well against the text. Congrats on using the h* tags correctly, not many people do that ;) How about making it xhtml/html-strict? On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:39:35 -0600, Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:
Fellow Boosters,
Well I must say I've been smiling all day :-) Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And I've been putting finishing touches on my design hopefully coming up with something everyone can enjoy.
I have two different sample for you to gander at. The first is the simple clean version...
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
The second adds some background flair to the page...
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index_code.htm
And for those with CSS switching browser, there's an alternate CSS on each of those which displays the page without any CSS. Just to show that everything is done in thee CSS ;-)
Enjoy. Have a good weekend, and all that.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Cory Nelson http://www.int64.org
Cory Nelson wrote:
Hmm.. Make the boost logo horizontal, that empty block of blue doesn't look good (imho).
Noted.. see my reply about this elsewhere.
If you must keep the icons,
I must ;-) They are the elements that make the page interesting. Without them the page would be basically back to the original. The point is to introduce something non-obtrusive and useful in the page that gives the eyes something to do other than fall asleep reading text.
make the text for them run right next to their icons and much bigger (took me more than a quick glance to find my way to the text).
Well this is where I'll likely put my design foot down :-) Icons serve the purpose of stand ins for a corresponding text. In this case the icons are stand ins for the headings. Icons loose their effectiveness if you have the equivalent text near it. This is the stand in usefulness not the visual interest usefulness, although it also looses some of that because of the distraction that the text becomes. My ideal would be to not have the text headings at all. But I concede that it is of some clarification value to part of the audience as to what the sections contain. The current design ties it to both the section and the icon without intruding onto the icon. And it takes at most a few seconds for someone to find the text so they are not likely to get totally lost.
Congrats on using the h* tags correctly, not many people do that ;)
Thanks :-) HTMLTidy and the W3 validators are my friends on this one.
How about making it xhtml/html-strict?
Will try... Most of the HTML is not mine. It's copied from the CVS state and only slightly modified to make the CSS style easier to do. There's at least two validations that the HTML currently doesn't pass. All because of the Google suggested HTML ;-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
You can use tidy to convert your pages to xhtml (warning: it may change something you weren't expecting) though it won't magically change html-transitional into xhtml-strict - I can help you on that one if you want/need, I've got lots of experience with that stuff. On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 00:48:29 -0600, Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:
Cory Nelson wrote:
Hmm.. Make the boost logo horizontal, that empty block of blue doesn't look good (imho).
Noted.. see my reply about this elsewhere.
If you must keep the icons,
I must ;-) They are the elements that make the page interesting. Without them the page would be basically back to the original. The point is to introduce something non-obtrusive and useful in the page that gives the eyes something to do other than fall asleep reading text.
make the text for them run right next to their icons and much bigger (took me more than a quick glance to find my way to the text).
Well this is where I'll likely put my design foot down :-) Icons serve the purpose of stand ins for a corresponding text. In this case the icons are stand ins for the headings. Icons loose their effectiveness if you have the equivalent text near it. This is the stand in usefulness not the visual interest usefulness, although it also looses some of that because of the distraction that the text becomes.
My ideal would be to not have the text headings at all. But I concede that it is of some clarification value to part of the audience as to what the sections contain. The current design ties it to both the section and the icon without intruding onto the icon. And it takes at most a few seconds for someone to find the text so they are not likely to get totally lost.
Congrats on using the h* tags correctly, not many people do that ;)
Thanks :-) HTMLTidy and the W3 validators are my friends on this one.
How about making it xhtml/html-strict?
Will try... Most of the HTML is not mine. It's copied from the CVS state and only slightly modified to make the CSS style easier to do. There's at least two validations that the HTML currently doesn't pass. All because of the Google suggested HTML ;-)
--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Cory Nelson http://www.int64.org
Cory Nelson wrote:
You can use tidy to convert your pages to xhtml (warning: it may change something you weren't expecting) though it won't magically change html-transitional into xhtml-strict - I can help you on that one if you want/need, I've got lots of experience with that stuff.
I have applied <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > to the HTML page and used it in XML with Mozilla Firefox to ensure it is XML compliant and used the HTML tidy extension to clean up the remaining warnings. I have not addressed the accessability issues, though. The updated version is available at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html NOTE: You may need to remove the code at the end of the file added by Yahoo!. I have also been playing with the new front page CSS. The original (unmodified) HTML page looks like: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost.html with the revised CSS. The version available at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html as well as making it XHTML compliant, I have moved the top <h1> element to after the <body> element, instead of in the <div> elements. Regards, Reece
Ooops: http://www.unfinity.de/foo.png You aren't serious about the hover color either, right? ;) (Firefox 1.0, Windows XP) Cheers, Michael On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:14:39 +0000, Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cory Nelson wrote:
You can use tidy to convert your pages to xhtml (warning: it may change something you weren't expecting) though it won't magically change html-transitional into xhtml-strict - I can help you on that one if you want/need, I've got lots of experience with that stuff.
I have applied <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd" > to the HTML page and used it in XML with Mozilla Firefox to ensure it is XML compliant and used the HTML tidy extension to clean up the remaining warnings. I have not addressed the accessability issues, though.
The updated version is available at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html
NOTE: You may need to remove the code at the end of the file added by Yahoo!.
I have also been playing with the new front page CSS. The original (unmodified) HTML page looks like: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost.html with the revised CSS.
The version available at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html as well as making it XHTML compliant, I have moved the top <h1> element to after the <body> element, instead of in the <div> elements.
Regards, Reece
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Michael Walter wrote:
If you take a look at http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html, that better places the "Welcome to Boost.org!" text. I have also fixed a few things (for some reason I deleted the first line of the CSS that read "body" when editing the CSS before uploading it).
You aren't serious about the hover color either, right? ;)
How about this new one (pale green: #BBFFBB). If not, do you have any better suggestions.
(Firefox 1.0, Windows XP)
:) Ditto.
Cheers, Michael
Reece Dunn wrote:
[...] If you take a look at http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html, that better places the "Welcome to Boost.org!" text. I have also fixed a few things (for some reason I deleted the first line of the CSS that read "body" when editing the CSS before uploading it). [...]
Umm...the color scheme reminds me more of Mary Kay than C++. ;) The logo is very C++-like, but perhaps a bit too much? Dave
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 04:17:21 +0000, Reece Dunn wrote First off, most of this is headed in the right direction. Most of what I see is a nice improvement over the current site. A couple of points: 1) Can we move the search? I'm sorry I don't have time to prototype something, but it would be great if the search could get out of the main flow of the page and into the header somehow. What I'm thinking is something vaguely like http://www.php.net/ where the search is on the top right of the page. We might also consider putting a 'quickpick' bar running across the top which has the most frequently used links. And just to be clear, I'm not a big fan of the 3 column arrangement on the php front page... 2) Color choices: http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm White on blue isn't a good choice here in my view. A light shading with dark text would be much better. I don't like these either -- the red is too jarring for me... http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html Luckily, these are easy to change. 3) The need for icons Personally, the icons really don't do anything except add a bit of flair to the page. So I'm with Dave on this -- the text is more important. I'll have some additional thoughts on content organization if I can ever get finished with my OOPSLA workshop writeup. We had some specific discussions about content changes that need to be made... Thanks for working on this! Jeff
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
2) Color choices: http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
White on blue isn't a good choice here in my view. A light shading with dark text would be much better.
These things are very subjective. I liked the white on blue, but sometimes you have to pick lowest common denominator to make things work for everyone. http://luabind.sourceforge.net/boost.png Did that by erring on the side of simplicity.
I don't like these either -- the red is too jarring for me... http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html
Me too.
3) The need for icons Personally, the icons really don't do anything except add a bit of flair to the page. So I'm with Dave on this -- the text is more important.
Which is why it should be dark.
I'll have some additional thoughts on content organization if I can ever get finished with my OOPSLA workshop writeup. We had some specific discussions about content changes that need to be made...
Thanks for working on this!
Indeed, THANKS! -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:55:03 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
2) Color choices: http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
White on blue isn't a good choice here in my view. A light shading with dark text would be much better.
These things are very subjective. I liked the white on blue, but sometimes you have to pick lowest common denominator to make things work for everyone.
Well this one looks good to me -- hopefully it was clear that I wasn't commenting on the logo, but the text in the side bar. And in that realm I think it's not totally subjective. I'm no usability expert, but I'm sure folks on this list could point us to studies which show how to improve usability. I think my main issue is that the contrast between the navigation aid and the text is too high. If we were setting things for maximum usability I think you have to go to a dark backgrounds for all sections with white text for the whole page -- which I doubt we are prepared to do... Jeff
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 11:55:03 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
2) Color choices: http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
White on blue isn't a good choice here in my view. A light shading with dark text would be much better.
These things are very subjective. I liked the white on blue, but sometimes you have to pick lowest common denominator to make things work for everyone.
Well this one looks good to me -- hopefully it was clear that I wasn't commenting on the logo, but the text in the side bar. And in that realm I think it's not totally subjective.
Agreed. Just very subjective.
I'm no usability expert, but I'm sure folks on this list could point us to studies which show how to improve usability.
Beyond a certain point, you can only improve usability in agreggate. At that point any change you make is going to be worse for somebody.
I think my main issue is that the contrast between the navigation aid and the text is too high.
I had a similar feeling about it.
If we were setting things for maximum usability I think you have to go to a dark backgrounds for all sections with white text for the whole page -- which I doubt we are prepared to do...
Uhhh, that's a very personal idea of maximum usability. Studies have shown that black on white works better (in aggregate, of course ;->). -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:48:48 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
If we were setting things for maximum usability I think you have to go to a dark backgrounds for all sections with white text for the whole page -- which I doubt we are prepared to do...
Uhhh, that's a very personal idea of maximum usability. Studies have shown that black on white works better (in aggregate, of course ;->).
Perhaps. Here's a quick quote from the attached web-page: Text should be printed with the highest possible contrast. There is good evidence that for many readers who are older or partially sighted, light (white or light yellow) letters on a dark (black) background are more readable than dark letters on a light background. However, the traditional dark on light may be aesthetically preferable. Go to the page to see examples / research: http://www.lighthouse.org/print_leg.htm http://www.aprompt.ca/WebPageColors.html But no matter the research, we need to bow to the last line. BTW, when I read a web page I like to 'select' the paragraph I'm reading which has the effect of inverting the text so black on white becomes white on black :-) Jeff
Jeff Garland wrote:
On Sun, 21 Nov 2004 14:48:48 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
If we were setting things for maximum usability I think you have to go to a dark backgrounds for all sections with white text for the whole page -- which I doubt we are prepared to do...
Uhhh, that's a very personal idea of maximum usability. Studies have shown that black on white works better (in aggregate, of course ;->).
Perhaps. Here's a quick quote from the attached web-page:
Text should be printed with the highest possible contrast. There is good evidence that for many readers who are older or partially sighted, light (white or light yellow) letters on a dark (black) background are more readable than dark letters on a light background. However, the traditional dark on light may be aesthetically preferable.
Go to the page to see examples / research:
http://www.lighthouse.org/print_leg.htm http://www.aprompt.ca/WebPageColors.html
But no matter the research, we need to bow to the last line.
I think this phrase is more illuminating: Several other important findings also resulted from the analysis including the fact that light-on-dark color combinations were rated the same as dark-on-light color combinations.. The key is to increase content contrast until it is readable by most of the target audience. For the rest you rely on providing alternatives that they can read. A more effective way to make sure it's readable by the visually impaired is to adhere to the Section 508 standards. That way those persons can apply their own style sheet that is readable to them. By the way I have been making incremental changes to the contrast and other minor elements. Just did not want to pollute the list with an email for every change. Go visit the page once in a while to see if things are more to your liking and post with comments.
BTW, when I read a web page I like to 'select' the paragraph I'm reading which has the effect of inverting the text so black on white becomes white on black :-)
Neat.. I've done the same in many sites but in the other direction ;-) It would be possible to provide such visual effects. But without Javascript it only work on CSS1 compliant browser, i.e. not IE :-\ -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
By the way I have been making incremental changes to the contrast and other minor elements. Just did not want to pollute the list with an email for every change. Go visit the page once in a while to see if things are more to your liking and post with comments.
IMO we're getting further and further away from the ideal. Daniel's variation on your original is still the best one I've seen. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
By the way I have been making incremental changes to the contrast and other minor elements. Just did not want to pollute the list with an email for every change. Go visit the page once in a while to see if things are more to your liking and post with comments.
IMO we're getting further and further away from the ideal. Daniel's variation on your original is still the best one I've seen.
Sorry didn't intend that as a reply to the dark vs. light menu. Just as a question to Jeff as o which version he was saying did not have enough contrast... I'll deal with flipping the bkg/text contract on the menu soon. I've been working on a different logo :-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
By the way I have been making incremental changes to the contrast and other minor elements. Just did not want to pollute the list with an email for every change. Go visit the page once in a while to see if things are more to your liking and post with comments.
Is http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm the (a?) main contender yet? For the most part, it looks very nice, so kudos on the work you've put into it. However, I have a few comments on it: -- As viewed with my browsers, which work quite nicely at other web sites, there is way too much white, and not enough black/blue from the text. IOW, the contrast is really low because the lines of the letters are so thin. This is more pronounced with the blue of the links than with the black, but both are a problem. -- The chevron icons do nothing for me. They aren't indicative of the section they call out and there are only three on the page. If they differed for each section, they might provide value, or if they were more visually useful, they might be better. As suggestions for the latter, you could use drop caps in the headings instead of icons, per se, or you could use a partial box: | Welcome to Boost.org! +----------- The partial box would be sized to be just a portion of the width of the headings (and the same width for all of them). -- The "Participation" section should be a subsection of the "Welcome to Boost.org!" section. It should be a main section, despite how much participation is valued. -- I liked Jeff's suggestion of a "toolbar" of most frequent links across the top. I'm sure there can be some argument as to what the most frequently used links are, but if the list is kept short, it shouldn't be too hard. -- The drop down list for searching obscures the other choices. I think the right behavior is to search everything, or just the site from the home page, with an "Advanced Search" link that offers more search options. This helps to keep the home page simpler and is more in keeping with other web sites. -- The section labeled, "About," has always mislead me. I guess I've been trained by Microsoft to expect application or organization information under that heading, so the links that appear in that section seem out of place. In this case, changing "About" to, say, "Reviews and Submissions" might be just the thing. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
I find the small black >> icon in the :hover effect really disturbing. Some more .02f Euro, Michael On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 16:15:23 -0500 (EST), Rob Stewart <stewart@sig.com> wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
By the way I have been making incremental changes to the contrast and other minor elements. Just did not want to pollute the list with an email for every change. Go visit the page once in a while to see if things are more to your liking and post with comments.
Is http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm the (a?) main contender yet? For the most part, it looks very nice, so kudos on the work you've put into it. However, I have a few comments on it:
-- As viewed with my browsers, which work quite nicely at other web sites, there is way too much white, and not enough black/blue from the text. IOW, the contrast is really low because the lines of the letters are so thin. This is more pronounced with the blue of the links than with the black, but both are a problem.
-- The chevron icons do nothing for me. They aren't indicative of the section they call out and there are only three on the page. If they differed for each section, they might provide value, or if they were more visually useful, they might be better. As suggestions for the latter, you could use drop caps in the headings instead of icons, per se, or you could use a partial box:
| Welcome to Boost.org! +-----------
The partial box would be sized to be just a portion of the width of the headings (and the same width for all of them).
-- The "Participation" section should be a subsection of the "Welcome to Boost.org!" section. It should be a main section, despite how much participation is valued.
-- I liked Jeff's suggestion of a "toolbar" of most frequent links across the top. I'm sure there can be some argument as to what the most frequently used links are, but if the list is kept short, it shouldn't be too hard.
-- The drop down list for searching obscures the other choices. I think the right behavior is to search everything, or just the site from the home page, with an "Advanced Search" link that offers more search options. This helps to keep the home page simpler and is more in keeping with other web sites.
-- The section labeled, "About," has always mislead me. I guess I've been trained by Microsoft to expect application or organization information under that heading, so the links that appear in that section seem out of place. In this case, changing "About" to, say, "Reviews and Submissions" might be just the thing.
-- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> [...] -- As viewed with my browsers, which work quite nicely at other web sites, there is way too much white, and not enough black/blue from the text. IOW, the contrast is really low because the lines of the letters are so thin. This is more pronounced with the blue of the links than with the black, but both are a problem.
I think dense text is much harder to read. When space is at a premium, then I think dense text is acceptable. But given the choice between a crowded page and a more open one, I prefer the latter. Dense text tends to make it more difficult to find things, I think.
[...] -- The "Participation" section should be a subsection of the "Welcome to Boost.org!" section. It should be a main section, despite how much participation is valued.
Did you mean to say "It should [not] be a main section..."? If so, I think I agree. It's such a small paragraph that it seems a little odd by itself.
[...] -- The drop down list for searching obscures the other choices. I think the right behavior is to search everything, or just the site from the home page, with an "Advanced Search" link that offers more search options. This helps to keep the home page simpler and is more in keeping with other web sites.
I guess that would be appropriate if the site were very large and had many possible places to search. But on a site as small as Boost, with fairly disjoint sets of data that people generally want to look at, I think having partitioned searches is just fine.
-- The section labeled, "About," has always mislead me. I guess I've been trained by Microsoft to expect application or organization information under that heading, so the links that appear in that section seem out of place. In this case, changing "About" to, say, "Reviews and Submissions" might be just the thing.
I agree that "About" is used a little unconventionally. I think other possibilities for the section title would be "Policies", "Protocol", "Details", "Contributing" or something along those lines. Dave
From: "David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> [...] -- As viewed with my browsers, which work quite nicely at other web sites, there is way too much white, and not enough black/blue from the text. IOW, the contrast is really low because the lines of the letters are so thin. This is more pronounced with the blue of the links than with the black, but both are a problem.
I think dense text is much harder to read. When space is at a premium, then I think dense text is acceptable. But given the choice between a crowded page and a more open one, I prefer the latter. Dense text tends to make it more difficult to find things, I think.
At present, there's no danger of that problem. Note, I'm not talking about the whitespace between paragraphs or sections of the page, but about how little black or blue there is where there is text. It is difficult for me to read the text because the letters are washed out by the white background.
[...] -- The "Participation" section should be a subsection of the "Welcome to Boost.org!" section. It should be a main section, despite how much participation is valued.
Did you mean to say "It should [not] be a main section..."? If so,
Yes, I did mean to write that.
I think I agree. It's such a small paragraph that it seems a little odd by itself.
Right.
[...] -- The drop down list for searching obscures the other choices. I think the right behavior is to search everything, or just the site from the home page, with an "Advanced Search" link that offers more search options. This helps to keep the home page simpler and is more in keeping with other web sites.
I guess that would be appropriate if the site were very large and had many possible places to search. But on a site as small as Boost, with fairly disjoint sets of data that people generally want to look at, I think having partitioned searches is just fine.
Radio buttons with the three choices would be better, then.
-- The section labeled, "About," has always mislead me. I guess I've been trained by Microsoft to expect application or organization information under that heading, so the links that appear in that section seem out of place. In this case, changing "About" to, say, "Reviews and Submissions" might be just the thing.
I agree that "About" is used a little unconventionally. I think other possibilities for the section title would be "Policies", "Protocol", "Details", "Contributing" or something along those lines.
Reasonable ideas. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> [...] -- As viewed with my browsers, which work quite nicely at other web sites, there is way too much white, and not enough black/blue from the text. IOW, the contrast is really low because the lines of the letters are so thin. This is more pronounced with the blue of the links than with the black, but both are a problem.
I think dense text is much harder to read. When space is at a premium, then I think dense text is acceptable. But given the choice between a crowded page and a more open one, I prefer the latter. Dense text tends to make it more difficult to find things, I think.
At present, there's no danger of that problem. Note, I'm not talking about the whitespace between paragraphs or sections of the page, but about how little black or blue there is where there is text. It is difficult for me to read the text because the letters are washed out by the white background.
I think we'd need to see a screen capture of what you see. I think you are the only one so far to complain about the text not being dense enough. Everyone else has complained about the opposite. Hence why I went through the task of figuring out how to use the IE "smaller" font portably.
-- The "Participation" section should be a subsection of the "Welcome to Boost.org!" section. It should be a main section, despite how much participation is valued.
Did you mean to say "It should [not] be a main section..."? If so, I think I agree. It's such a small paragraph that it seems a little odd by itself.
Right.
Right content changes... How do others feel? Should "Participation" be, or not, a section? ... I'll make a comparison page for people to look at.. http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index-alt.htm
-- The section labeled, "About," has always mislead me. I guess
I agree that "About" is used a little unconventionally. I think other possibilities for the section title would be "Policies", "Protocol", "Details", "Contributing" or something along those lines.
Unless more things get pushed into that group.. "Contributing", or the shorter more active "Contribute", captures most narrowly the current set of links. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Right content changes... How do others feel? Should "Participation" be, or not, a section? ... I'll make a comparison page for people to look at..
It's a basic principle of hierarchical documents that you should never have a section with only one subsection. Usually the solution is to raise the subsection up a level rather than adding an additional subsection. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
Right content changes... How do others feel? Should "Participation" be, or not, a section? ... I'll make a comparison page for people to look at..
It's a basic principle of hierarchical documents that you should never have a section with only one subsection. Usually the solution is to raise the subsection up a level rather than adding an additional subsection.
I find it preferable to "Participation" being a major section, but wouldn't mind a new "<H2>Purpose</H2>" before "The Boost web site...." -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
Right content changes... How do others feel? Should "Participation" be, or not, a section? ... I'll make a comparison page for people to look at..
It's a basic principle of hierarchical documents that you should never have a section with only one subsection. Usually the solution is to raise the subsection up a level rather than adding an additional subsection.
I find it preferable to "Participation" being a major section, but wouldn't mind a new "<H2>Purpose</H2>" before "The Boost web site...."
..Like it is now ;-) It does make it better, than just the participation section. Not sure if it's much of a gain on the participation as a section. Other than it's a bit easier to grasp the structure when it's only the Welcome/Intro plus News sections, instead of the three sections. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
Right content changes... How do others feel? Should "Participation" be, or not, a section? ... I'll make a comparison page for people to look at..
It's a basic principle of hierarchical documents that you should never have a section with only one subsection. Usually the solution is to raise the subsection up a level rather than adding an additional subsection.
I find it preferable to "Participation" being a major section, but wouldn't mind a new "<H2>Purpose</H2>" before "The Boost web site...."
...Like it is now ;-)
It does make it better, than just the participation section. Not sure if it's much of a gain on the participation as a section. Other than it's a bit easier to grasp the structure when it's only the Welcome/Intro plus News sections, instead of the three sections.
But this violates another principle: A section must always have content that is not buried in a subsection. Heading 1 --------- You need something here. Subheading 1.1 -------------- blah Subheading 1.2 -------------- blah blah. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
It does make it better, than just the participation section. Not sure if it's much of a gain on the participation as a section. Other than it's a bit easier to grasp the structure when it's only the Welcome/Intro plus News sections, instead of the three sections.
Oops.. that's supposed to be "participation sub-section." in the first sentence.
But this violates another principle: A section must always have content that is not buried in a subsection.
I agree.. But the News section already violates that :-( -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
Right content changes... How do others feel? Should "Participation" be, or not, a section? ... I'll make a comparison page for people to look at..
It's a basic principle of hierarchical documents that you should never have a section with only one subsection. Usually the solution is to raise the subsection up a level rather than adding an additional subsection.
I find it preferable to "Participation" being a major section, but wouldn't mind a new "<H2>Purpose</H2>" before "The Boost web site...."
...Like it is now ;-)
It does make it better, than just the participation section. Not sure if it's much of a gain on the participation as a section. Other than it's a bit easier to grasp the structure when it's only the Welcome/Intro plus News sections, instead of the three sections.
But this violates another principle: A section must always have content that is not buried in a subsection.
From whence do these principles come? I find them reasonable guidelines, but hardly unbending rules.
-- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
It's a basic principle of hierarchical documents that you should never have a section with only one subsection. Usually the solution is to raise the subsection up a level rather than adding an additional subsection.
I find it preferable to "Participation" being a major section, but wouldn't mind a new "<H2>Purpose</H2>" before "The Boost web site...."
...Like it is now ;-)
It does make it better, than just the participation section. Not sure if it's much of a gain on the participation as a section. Other than it's a bit easier to grasp the structure when it's only the Welcome/Intro
Rob Stewart wrote: plus
News sections, instead of the three sections.
But this violates another principle: A section must always have content that is not buried in a subsection.
From whence do these principles come? I find them reasonable guidelines, but hardly unbending rules.
I learned them in school and they are supported by Addison-Wesley as I found out while writing a book recently. I think they use the Chicago Manual of Style as a base document. Authoritative enough for you? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From whence do these principles come? I find them reasonable guidelines, but hardly unbending rules.
I learned them in school and they are supported by Addison-Wesley as I found out while writing a book recently. I think they use the Chicago Manual of Style as a base document. Authoritative enough for you?
That's reasonably authoritative, but must those principles govern the Boost home page? -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From whence do these principles come? I find them reasonable guidelines, but hardly unbending rules.
I learned them in school and they are supported by Addison-Wesley as I found out while writing a book recently. I think they use the Chicago Manual of Style as a base document. Authoritative enough for you?
That's reasonably authoritative, but must those principles govern the Boost home page?
We can of course choose to make up our own rules, but the standard ones are, well, standard. I'm not going to argue that there's a good reason for them (though people have probably come up with reasons), but anything else looks odd. So that's reason enough in my book ;-) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: "David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
-- As viewed with my browsers, which work quite nicely at other web sites, there is way too much white, and not enough black/blue from the text. IOW, the contrast is really low because the lines of the letters are so thin. This is more pronounced with the blue of the links than with the black, but both are a problem.
I think dense text is much harder to read. When space is at a premium, then I think dense text is acceptable. But given the choice between a crowded page and a more open one, I prefer the latter. Dense text tends to make it more difficult to find things, I think.
At present, there's no danger of that problem. Note, I'm not talking about the whitespace between paragraphs or sections of the page, but about how little black or blue there is where there is text. It is difficult for me to read the text because the letters are washed out by the white background.
I think we'd need to see a screen capture of what you see. I think you are the only one so far to complain about the text not being dense enough. Everyone else has complained about the opposite. Hence why I went through the task of figuring out how to use the IE "smaller" font portably.
I tried to get a good screen capture, but the Solaris tool I know about (snapshot) doesn't capture to GIF or PNG, so I had to convert the output (using imagetool). The result did not reflect what I see on the screen. After further investigation, I found that switching my default san-serif font from adobe-helvetica-iso8859-1 to, for example, itc-avantgarde-iso8859-1 helped greatly. I had a similar, but less pronounced problem, when viewing the page on my XP box, but it turns out that it was more an artifact of viewing my XP desktop via rdesktop on my Solaris machine. When viewed directly on my XP desktop, the text seemed reasonable. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
-- The chevron icons do nothing for me. They aren't indicative of the section they call out and there are only three on the page. If they differed for each section, they might provide value, or if they were more visually useful, they might be better. As suggestions for the latter, you could use drop caps in the headings instead of icons, per se, or you could use a partial box:
| Welcome to Boost.org! +-----------
The partial box would be sized to be just a portion of the width of the headings (and the same width for all of them).
They are indicative of a section, nothing else. They call attention to a section without overloading the text itself, as the text is already bolder. It's good that there are only three, or two, as otherwise they would loose their indication power, they stand out more the fewer there are. As pointed out in the early designs making such indicators more visually meaningful was described as distractions from the text. Doing the design you suggests would clash with the rest of the design. The one alternative would be to use the same design element as that of the menu box and the search box on the header like: Welcome to Boost.org! ---------------------- | | The Boost web site... emphasis is on libraries... But that would dilute the meaning of those box lines away from the navigation boxes they currently delineate.
-- I liked Jeff's suggestion of a "toolbar" of most frequent links across the top. I'm sure there can be some argument as to what the most frequently used links are, but if the list is kept short, it shouldn't be too hard.
Must have missed that suggestion :-\ I don't think there's any argument as to what the most frequently used links are. They are all the links that are currently on the left navigation menu and in the search box. If something is not popular enough it will never get a place on the navigation menu. So duplicating some of those someplace else in the page would only help to clutter the page and confuse visitors. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
-- The chevron icons do nothing for me. They aren't indicative of the section they call out and there are only three on the page. If they differed for each section, they might provide value, or if they were more visually useful, they might be better. As suggestions for the latter, you could use drop caps in the headings instead of icons, per se, or you could use a partial box:
| Welcome to Boost.org! +-----------
The partial box would be sized to be just a portion of the width of the headings (and the same width for all of them).
They are indicative of a section, nothing else. They call attention to a section without overloading the text itself, as the text is already bolder. It's good that there are only three, or two, as otherwise they would loose their indication power, they stand out more the fewer there are. As pointed out in the early designs making such indicators more visually meaningful was described as distractions from the text. Doing the design you suggests would clash with the rest of the design. The one alternative would be to use the same design element as that of the menu box and the search box on the header like:
I suggested two alternatives. Make each icon one different so they visually suggest the section. You're clearly rejecting that. My other suggestion was to make them more visually useful. Right now, they are big black blotches that are a distraction. They overwhelm the page and the heading they adorn. The partial box design I suggested would be less stark. I might also point out that the text doesn't have to be bold. The combination of the partial box and smaller or less bold text can be suitably strong in concert.
Welcome to Boost.org! ---------------------- | | The Boost web site... emphasis is on libraries...
But that would dilute the meaning of those box lines away from the navigation boxes they currently delineate.
Too busy.
-- I liked Jeff's suggestion of a "toolbar" of most frequent links across the top. I'm sure there can be some argument as to what the most frequently used links are, but if the list is kept short, it shouldn't be too hard.
Must have missed that suggestion :-\
I don't think there's any argument as to what the most frequently used links are. They are all the links that are currently on the left navigation menu and in the search box. If something is not popular enough it will never get a place on the navigation menu. So duplicating some of those someplace else in the page would only help to clutter the page and confuse visitors.
Sure, those are very common links, but there is a smaller set that could adorn every page, not just the home page. If there was a page that grouped what is under the caption "Contributing," for example, you could include "Documentation" and "Contributing" in the top bar. (I'm not saying that's what should be there; I'm just suggesting that there are a few highly common things that could, reasonably, be called out in a "toolbar" at the top of every page to make high level, common navigation easier. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
-- The chevron icons do nothing for me. They aren't indicative of the section they call out and there are only three on the page. If they differed for each section, they might provide value, or if they were more visually useful, they might be better. As suggestions for the latter, you could use drop caps in the headings instead of icons, per se, or you could use a partial box:
| Welcome to Boost.org! +-----------
The partial box would be sized to be just a portion of the width of the headings (and the same width for all of them).
They are indicative of a section, nothing else. They call attention to a section without overloading the text itself, as the text is already bolder. It's good that there are only three, or two, as otherwise they would loose their indication power, they stand out more the fewer there are. As pointed out in the early designs making such indicators more visually meaningful was described as distractions from the text. Doing the design you suggests would clash with the rest of the design. The one alternative would be to use the same design element as that of the menu box and the search box on the header like:
I suggested two alternatives. Make each icon one different so they visually suggest the section. You're clearly rejecting that.
No I wasn't rejecting it. What I said is that other people rejected it. That is the design I started out with, of having a "representative" icon for the sections. Icons, as opposed to the current indicators, didn't go over well for most people.
My other suggestion was to make them more visually useful. Right now, they are big black blotches that are a distraction. They overwhelm the page and the heading they adorn. The partial box design I suggested would be less stark.
stark: 1 a : rigid in or as if in death b : rigidly conforming (as to a pattern or doctrine) : ABSOLUTE <stark discipline> 2 archaic : STRONG, ROBUST 3 : UTTER, SHEER <stark nonsense> 4 a : BARREN, DESOLATE b (1) : having few or no ornaments : BARE <a stark white room> (2) : HARSH, BLUNT <the stark realities of death> 5 : sharply delineated <a stark contrast> I think you are using #5 ?? I disagree.. Making the section heading less "stark" just muddles the structure of the front page.
I might also point out that the text doesn't have to be bold. The combination of the partial box and smaller or less bold text can be suitably strong in concert.
No it doesn't have to be bold.. But it would be inconsistent with the rest of the page.
Welcome to Boost.org! ---------------------- | | The Boost web site... emphasis is on libraries...
But that would dilute the meaning of those box lines away from the navigation boxes they currently delineate.
Too busy.
Really? How is it more busy than your box idea?
I don't think there's any argument as to what the most frequently used links are. They are all the links that are currently on the left navigation menu and in the search box. If something is not popular enough it will never get a place on the navigation menu. So duplicating some of those someplace else in the page would only help to clutter the page and confuse visitors.
Sure, those are very common links, but there is a smaller set that could adorn every page, not just the home page.
I think you misunderstood what I said, probably be cause we both implied different things :-) The _front_ page doesn't need the added clutter of duplicate links, nothing to say of making it fail accessibility validation. Yes, interior pages would benefit from a navigation bar, possibly at the top, just like most of them already have. But that is a different discussion. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
My other suggestion was to make them more visually useful. Right now, they are big black blotches that are a distraction. They overwhelm the page and the heading they adorn. The partial box design I suggested would be less stark.
stark: 5 : sharply delineated <a stark contrast>
I think you are using #5 ??
Yep.
I disagree.. Making the section heading less "stark" just muddles the structure of the front page.
I didn't say to make the heading less stark. I'm after making the graphical element less stark.
I might also point out that the text doesn't have to be bold. The combination of the partial box and smaller or less bold text can be suitably strong in concert.
No it doesn't have to be bold.. But it would be inconsistent with the rest of the page.
The others could well follow suit. Even if they don't, the headings in question are already much larger, so they can be different in this way without causing the inconsistency you're imagining (at least in my imagination).
Welcome to Boost.org! ---------------------- | | The Boost web site... emphasis is on libraries...
But that would dilute the meaning of those box lines away from the navigation boxes they currently delineate.
Too busy.
Really? How is it more busy than your box idea?
I took that to mean that the vertical line would continue along the text of the entire section. If you meant just a small vertical line, then that might also be appropriate. I'd be interested in seeing both.
Sure, those are very common links, but there is a smaller set that could adorn every page, not just the home page.
The _front_ page doesn't need the added clutter of duplicate links, nothing to say of making it fail accessibility validation.
Yes, interior pages would benefit from a navigation bar, possibly at the top, just like most of them already have. But that is a different discussion.
You're probably right (that such a navbar should be on all but the first page). -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
"Jeff Garland" <jeff@crystalclearsoftware.com> writes:
BTW, when I read a web page I like to 'select' the paragraph I'm reading which has the effect of inverting the text so black on white becomes white on black :-)
Funny, I often do that too. I never considered the possibility that it might be a subconsciously-driven readability improvement! -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
This is very close to what I would want. Simple, does the job but still visually interesting. As Jeff already noted, I think well-placed icons would certainly add some more flair but are otherwise of little use. A little tweaking here and there and we're done. I'm really looking forward to the new Boost look. Thanks to Rene and all others working on this! Regards, -- Andreas Huber When replying by private email, please remove the words spam and trap from the address shown in the header.
Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> writes:
Michael Walter wrote:
If you take a look at http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html, that better places the "Welcome to Boost.org!" text. I have also fixed a few things (for some reason I deleted the first line of the CSS that read "body" when editing the CSS before uploading it).
I'm sorry, but that raspberry color is really not working for me. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> writes:
Michael Walter wrote:
If you take a look at http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html, that better places the "Welcome to Boost.org!" text. I have also fixed a few things (for some reason I deleted the first line of the CSS that read "body" when editing the CSS before uploading it).
I'm sorry, but that raspberry color is really not working for me.
How about this new one (http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html). If you have a better colour for the menu panel, let me know and I'll apply it. I have also reworked the menu slightly. Regards, Reece
Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> writes:
Michael Walter wrote:
If you take a look at http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html, that better places the "Welcome to Boost.org!" text. I have also fixed a few things (for some reason I deleted the first line of the CSS that read "body" when editing the CSS before uploading it). I'm sorry, but that raspberry color is really not working for me.
How about this new one (http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html). If you have a better colour for the menu panel, let me know and I'll apply it.
Ick. The green is okay but the section headings are awful. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Here is an xhtml 1.0 strict version of your boost2.html (note, the stylesheet was modified also): http://dev.int64.org/boost/index.html On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 23:14:39 +0000, Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote:
Cory Nelson wrote:
You can use tidy to convert your pages to xhtml (warning: it may change something you weren't expecting) though it won't magically change html-transitional into xhtml-strict - I can help you on that one if you want/need, I've got lots of experience with that stuff.
I have applied <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"
to the HTML page and used it in XML with Mozilla Firefox to ensure it is XML compliant and used the HTML tidy extension to clean up the remaining warnings. I have not addressed the accessability issues, though.
The updated version is available at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html
NOTE: You may need to remove the code at the end of the file added by Yahoo!.
I have also been playing with the new front page CSS. The original (unmodified) HTML page looks like: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost.html with the revised CSS.
The version available at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html as well as making it XHTML compliant, I have moved the top <h1> element to after the <body> element, instead of in the <div> elements.
Regards, Reece
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
-- Cory Nelson http://www.int64.org
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Cory Nelson wrote:
Hmm.. Make the boost logo horizontal, that empty block of blue doesn't look good (imho).
Noted.. see my reply about this elsewhere.
If you must keep the icons,
I must ;-) They are the elements that make the page interesting. Without them the page would be basically back to the original.
I like the icons, but I have to disagree. It's a major, huge improvement even without them. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
make the text for them run right next to their icons and much bigger (took me more than a quick glance to find my way to the text).
Well this is where I'll likely put my design foot down :-) Icons serve the purpose of stand ins for a corresponding text. In this case the icons are stand ins for the headings. Icons loose their effectiveness if you have the equivalent text near it.
This is the problem: unless the icons are already universally recognized symbols (like the red circle with the slash through it), they are made for people who already know what they're looking at. If you make the text small and far away it penalizes new visitors at the expense of people who already know their way around. And for myself, though a deeply visual person, I'm likely to forget the meanings of some of your icons easily even after many visits. I usually hate icons in toolbars -- they often waste screen real-estate and add clutter, and they seldom tell me what they mean in an obvious way -- so I usually turn them off. So please keep in mind that web UIs have to serve a broad spectrum of users, not all of whose brains work the way yours does.
This is the stand in usefulness not the visual interest usefulness, although it also looses some of that because of the distraction that the text becomes.
I like your icons as design elements, but if forced to choose, it's the icons I find to be a distraction, not the text. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
This is the problem: unless the icons are already universally recognized symbols (like the red circle with the slash through it), they are made for people who already know what they're looking at. If you make the text small and far away it penalizes new visitors at the expense of people who already know their way around. And for myself, though a deeply visual person, I'm likely to forget the meanings of some of your icons easily even after many visits. I usually hate icons in toolbars -- they often waste screen real-estate and add clutter, and they seldom tell me what they mean in an obvious way -- so I usually turn them off.
Hmm, good point... I have an idea of how to resolve the issue. Expect something later today :-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Expect something later today :-)
OK... More layout changes now. IMO it's much easier on the eyes now. It also validates as XHTML, CSS, and S-508. I know now logo change yet... It's coming! -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Expect something later today :-)
OK... More layout changes now. IMO it's much easier on the eyes now. It also validates as XHTML, CSS, and S-508.
I know now logo change yet... It's coming!
Oops forgot the link, in case people forgot ;-) http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm Enjoy. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
[...] OK... More layout changes now. IMO it's much easier on the eyes now.
Well, I find the dark blue menu background a bit hard to read, actually. A lighter tone might be nicer.
It also validates as XHTML, CSS, and S-508.
Cool. And it looks great in Firefox (what's that other browser called again? ;)
I know now logo change yet... It's coming!
We're waiting with bated breath. ;) Dave
I couldn't see visited link on blue background. I am not that fond of this background in general. Also I believe we need to keep old logo. I liked it way better anything I saw so far. Gennadiy
Rene Rivera wrote:
I know now logo change yet... It's coming!
Perhaps while this is being discussed, there might also be some discussion of adoption of a real mascot or emblem to serve as the logo for Boost. Stylized text is fun, but having a real logo adds significantly, in my opinion. I think it helps build a "brand," and in a way, the Boost brand is an especially important one. Microsoft has their flying Windows, Apple has their Apple, GNU has their gnu; what should Boost have? I'm sure there are some professional or experienced artists lurking out on the lists somewhere; perhaps they can lend a hand. Aaron W. LaFramboise
From: "Aaron W. LaFramboise"
Rene Rivera wrote:
I know now logo change yet... It's coming!
Perhaps while this is being discussed, there might also be some discussion of adoption of a real mascot or emblem to serve as the logo for Boost. Stylized text is fun, but having a real logo adds significantly, in my opinion.
I think our current Boost logo already does that, but that's my opinion. Whenever I see: that's Boost for me. I'd think that goes for many others, as well. I appreciate the efforts in creating a new look for the Boost homepage (although I think it was just fine the way it was, crisp, clear, and fast-loading, and I don't really think adding icons (I mean the navigational ones. The one of Aleksey is great: :) ) or having various background colours necessarily adds anything, and may distract, but that's me), but I think the proposed logo is too "geeky", with angle brackets and curly braces (and "C++" almost disappears against the dark blue. Besides, I don't like C++ being in curly braces - kind of looking like parentheses, as if subordinate): OTOH I do also like pages that have more colour, and also having icons (such as the Spirit homepage), so I guess it may have much to do with what you're used to, as well. Regarding the suggestion to have only the more recent news on the front page, with a link to the rest on a separate page, I think that's a good idea. As it is now, the page becomes longer and longer... the more news gets added (all the way from 2002). For example keep only information on the latest release (and perhaps any news items added since it), and the rest on a separate "News" page, linked to from the end of the front page, i.e. "More news" (link). Other things (present in the front page proposal), like having a uniform link colour (not different looking links depending on whether you've visited it or not), may also be a good idea. Different colours for visited/unvisited links may help navigating larger sites, or pages with a long list of links (knowing where you've been), but in the case of Boost, the aesthetic effect of uniform link colours might be more important. Regards, Terje
Terje Slettebø <tslettebo@broadpark.no> writes:
Regarding the suggestion to have only the more recent news on the front page, with a link to the rest on a separate page, I think that's a good idea. As it is now, the page becomes longer and longer... the more news gets added (all the way from 2002). For example keep only information on the latest release (and perhaps any news items added since it), and the rest on a separate "News" page, linked to from the end of the front page, i.e. "More news" (link).
We've already been removing old news from the front page. The policy for some time has been to go back one version on the front page, so you see the news for two versions of Boost. Maybe we should show only the latest news and push the older version's news to another page. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
On 11/21/04 11:44 AM, "David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote: [SNIP previous poster]
We've already been removing old news from the front page. The policy for some time has been to go back one version on the front page, so you see the news for two versions of Boost. Maybe we should show only the latest news and push the older version's news to another page.
I made a trial version of such a while ago. It's in the Sandbox under "ROOT/more/version_history.html". The list at the top of the file looks weird, but I'm want to implement it as a horizontal list through CSS. Anyone know how? (I've tried to look at how professional sites, like Mozilla, do it, but they scatter the code over several CSS files, making it too obtuse for me to discover.) -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
Daryle Walker wrote:
I made a trial version of such a while ago. It's in the Sandbox under "ROOT/more/version_history.html".
The list at the top of the file looks weird, but I'm want to implement it as a horizontal list through CSS. Anyone know how? (I've tried to look at how professional sites, like Mozilla, do it, but they scatter the code over several CSS files, making it too obtuse for me to discover.)
In the same directory as version_history.html, make version_history.css and put this in there: @import url("../boost.css"); #header img { float: left; } #header ul { text-align: right; list-style-type: none; white-space: nowrap; } #header ul li { display: inline; padding-left: 2em; } #main_body { clear: left; padding-top: 1em; } Then make version_history.html use your new CSS. HTH! -- Eric Niebler Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On 12/2/04 3:07 AM, "Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> wrote:
Daryle Walker wrote:
I made a trial version of such a while ago. It's in the Sandbox under "ROOT/more/version_history.html".
The list at the top of the file looks weird, but I'm want to implement it as a horizontal list through CSS. Anyone know how? (I've tried to look at how professional sites, like Mozilla, do it, but they scatter the code over several CSS files, making it too obtuse for me to discover.)
In the same directory as version_history.html, make version_history.css and put this in there: [SNIP] Then make version_history.html use your new CSS.
For now, I put this new CSS inline instead. It would move to the main CSS file if the version history file goes to the main CVS. I just updated the file to add the changes for 1.32.0. (We should make a copy of that Aleksey picture locally so it doesn't force a remote download every time.) I want the header to look like the ones we have on a lot of introduction and extra pages, except to be implemented through CSS instead of tables. Can anyone improve what I got there so far? -- Daryle Walker Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie darylew AT hotmail DOT com
On Sunday, November 21, 2004, at 02:43 AM, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
I know now logo change yet... It's coming!
Perhaps while this is being discussed, there might also be some discussion of adoption of a real mascot or emblem to serve as the logo for Boost. Stylized text is fun, but having a real logo adds significantly, in my opinion. I think it helps build a "brand," and in a way, the Boost brand is an especially important one.
Microsoft has their flying Windows, Apple has their Apple, GNU has their gnu; what should Boost have?
Either a catapult or a rocket. ....just my $.02 :-)
Rich Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, November 21, 2004, at 02:43 AM, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
Perhaps while this is being discussed, there might also be some discussion of adoption of a real mascot or emblem to serve as the logo for Boost. Stylized text is fun, but having a real logo adds significantly, in my opinion. I think it helps build a "brand," and in a way, the Boost brand is an especially important one.
Microsoft has their flying Windows, Apple has their Apple, GNU has their gnu; what should Boost have?
Either a catapult or a rocket. ....just my $.02 :-)
Rockets are fun :-) And have along history of use as logos, emblems, and tokens. Has the nice association of "Boost" with "booster rocket". A catapult is too retro ;-) We want to inspire cutting edge not middle ages. I'd say the rocket idea was worth more than $.02 -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
On Monday, November 22, 2004, at 02:55 PM, Rene Rivera wrote:
Rich Johnson wrote:
On Sunday, November 21, 2004, at 02:43 AM, Aaron W. LaFramboise wrote:
Perhaps while this is being discussed, there might also be some discussion of adoption of a real mascot or emblem to serve as the logo for Boost. Stylized text is fun, but having a real logo adds significantly, in my opinion. I think it helps build a "brand," and in a way, the Boost brand is an especially important one.
Microsoft has their flying Windows, Apple has their Apple, GNU has their gnu; what should Boost have? Either a catapult or a rocket. ....just my $.02 :-)
Rockets are fun :-) And have along history of use as logos, emblems, and tokens. Has the nice association of "Boost" with "booster rocket".
A catapult is too retro ;-) We want to inspire cutting edge not middle ages.
I'd say the rocket idea was worth more than $.02
$.02 euro?
Rene Rivera wrote:
[...] Well this is where I'll likely put my design foot down :-) Icons serve the purpose of stand ins for a corresponding text. In this case the icons are stand ins for the headings. Icons loose their effectiveness if you have the equivalent text near it. This is the stand in usefulness not the visual interest usefulness, although it also looses some of that because of the distraction that the text becomes. [...]
I disagree with your claims about text vs. icons. I'm using Thunderbird right now to compose messages, and I very much like that it has text captions for all the big icon buttons. Firefox does not display text under the buttons, which makes the buttons smaller, but also perhaps less useful. I think Dave makes a good point about universally recognized symbols vs. new conventions. When I see your toolbox icon, I do not think "newsgroups" or "communication" or "particpation". I think "tools", and I expect to see links to perhaps Boost.Build or BJam or CVS clients or compiler tools. I would think that a page icon with text on it would convey the mailing list/newsgroups more clearly. I didn't even see the text the first time around, which is why I asked for it to be added. I only found the text headings when I realized that other people were seeing them there. Perhaps that is food for thought. Having said all that, I appreciate the work you put into it, and am glad that somebody is doing it! Dave
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Fellow Boosters,
Well I must say I've been smiling all day :-) Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And I've been putting finishing touches on my design hopefully coming up with something everyone can enjoy.
I have two different sample for you to gander at. The first is the simple clean version...
Yay. Though I think I still like Daniel's variation on your original design best.
The second adds some background flair to the page...
Survey says? Bzzzt. Sorry, that one doesn't work for me. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
At 06:39 PM 11/19/2004, Rene Rivera wrote:
Well I must say I've been smiling all day :-) Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And I've been putting finishing touches on my design hopefully coming up with something everyone can enjoy.
I have two different sample for you to gander at. The first is the simple clean version...
A great improvement over the current design! Congratulations! One thing, however, is that I would personally like to see the boost.png (formerly boost.gif) logo continue to be used. I think people recognize it, and we should retain that tie to the past.
The second adds some background flair to the page...
That looks cluttered to me. I like the other one better. --Beman PS: Presumably this is for the 1.33.0 release; nice as it is we need to ship 1.32.0 ASAP.
Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes:
At 06:39 PM 11/19/2004, Rene Rivera wrote:
Well I must say I've been smiling all day :-) Thanks for the encouraging feedback. And I've been putting finishing touches on my design hopefully coming up with something everyone can enjoy.
I have two different sample for you to gander at. The first is the simple clean version...
A great improvement over the current design! Congratulations!
One thing, however, is that I would personally like to see the boost.png (formerly boost.gif) logo continue to be used. I think people recognize it, and we should retain that tie to the past.
Sorry to be blunt, but: 1. I disagree that it is well-recognized. It's too busy to make a memorable visual statement. 2. Even if it is well-recognized, I think it would be terrible to be tied down to that logo forever just because people currently recognize it: it's not a very good logo. I mean that it doesn't do what a logo should. I remember what the Spirit logo looks like better than I remember the Boost logo, and I've had way more exposure to the latter.
The second adds some background flair to the page...
That looks cluttered to me. I like the other one better.
--Beman
PS: Presumably this is for the 1.33.0 release; nice as it is we need to ship 1.32.0 ASAP.
Fortunately, it just shipped! -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes: [...] 1. I disagree that it is well-recognized. It's too busy to make a memorable visual statement.
2. Even if it is well-recognized, I think it would be terrible to be tied down to that logo forever just because people currently recognize it: it's not a very good logo. I mean that it doesn't do what a logo should. I remember what the Spirit logo looks like better than I remember the Boost logo, and I've had way more exposure to the latter. [...]
And I would say that both of these reasons are due to the fact that the simpler logos can be easily vectorized, while the current Boost logo is more like artwork than a logo. It's a nice image, but perhaps not a nice visual key, which is the purpose of a logo. Dave
At 01:07 AM 11/20/2004, David Abrahams wrote:
Beman Dawes <bdawes@acm.org> writes:
2. Even if it is well-recognized, I think it would be terrible to be tied down to that logo forever just because people currently recognize it: it's not a very good logo. I mean that it doesn't do what a logo should. I remember what the Spirit logo looks like better than I remember the Boost logo, and I've had way more exposure to the latter.
I guess it is a matter of personal taste. To me the current logo is much more memorable, and does exactly what we want it to do - tie the Boost name to C++ in a graphical form that is more visual than a pure text representation. --Beman
participants (2)
-
Aaron W. LaFramboise -
Andreas Huber -
Beman Dawes -
Cory Nelson -
Daryle Walker -
David Abrahams -
David B. Held -
Eric Niebler -
Gennadiy Rozental -
Jeff Garland -
Joel de Guzman -
Michael Walter -
Reece Dunn -
Rene Rivera -
Rich Johnson -
Rob Stewart -
Terje Slettebø