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
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.
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
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk