From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-01 15:03:41
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list_at_[hidden]>
> 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.
> > -- 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_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk