Re: [boost] Re: Front page redesign...

From: Rene Rivera (grafik.list_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-12-01 16:32:27

Rob Stewart wrote:
> 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.  

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