[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive
From: |
Nick Dokos |
Subject: |
Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive |
Date: |
Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:30:57 -0400 |
Nick Dokos <address@hidden> wrote:
> Sankalp <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > --f46d044401de1e3ad604c6de28a7
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree with Marcelo.
> > --
> > Sankalp
> >
> > *******************************************************
> > If humans could mate with software, I'd have org-mode's
> > babies.
> > --- Chris League on Twitter.
> > http://orgmode.org/worg/org-quotes.html
> > *******************************************************
> >
> >
> > On 10 August 2012 04:44, Jude DaShiell <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > > Good, that probably means it's one of the more accessible and usable web
> > > sites on the internet.
> > >
> > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hey list,
> > > >
> > > > Don't want to be negative, but doesn't anyone else also think the
> > > > current
> > > > design is kind of amateurish and not very attractive? I also did not
> > > > like
> > > > the screenshot used, I preferred the previous one, it showed more org
> > > > capabilities, and the colors and indentation looked better.
> > > >
> > > > My two cents and food for thought,
> > > >
>
> Talk is cheap: how would you improve it? And I don't mean generalities: build
> a website as you think it should be and then invite us over to take a look.
> And as Jude suggests, don't forget to keep accessibility/usability issues
> in mind as you design.
>
> Nick
>
It has been pointed out to me that my comments might be taken as
"overbearing". Not my intent, but I will take back the "talk is
cheap" part (or repeat it to myself as the target this time) and
apologize for it: I should have reread the mail before hitting send.
But the larger point is still there: "I don't like it" is a legitimate
response, but is not nearly as helpful as giving a list of reasons
of *why* you don't like it. And providing something you *like* is even
better. E.g. would the current design with the previous screen shot be
OK? Or are there deeper problems?
Nick
- [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa, 2012/08/09
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Jude DaShiell, 2012/08/09
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Sankalp, 2012/08/09
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Nick Dokos, 2012/08/10
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Jambunathan K, 2012/08/10
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive,
Nick Dokos <=
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa, 2012/08/10
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Nick Dokos, 2012/08/10
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Bastien, 2012/08/11
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, brian powell, 2012/08/10
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Bastien, 2012/08/11
- [O] [ANN] Letter modes in the Groff exporter, Luis Anaya, 2012/08/11
- Re: [O] [ANN] Letter modes in the Groff exporter, Suvayu Ali, 2012/08/11
- Re: [O] [ANN] Letter modes in the Groff exporter, Luis Anaya, 2012/08/11
- Re: [O] [ANN] Letter modes in the Groff exporter, Bastien, 2012/08/11
- Re: [O] [OT] Current website not very attractive, Bastien, 2012/08/11