Hi Nik, what a pleasure to see you (again) :-) Especially bringing some nice mockups and ideas with you ...
Since you've added another topic at the end, I'd really like to address this, too. Am Donnerstag, den 23.12.2010, 02:43 +1100 schrieb Nik: > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > I know this isn't something on our current to-do list or a priority, but > I've been watching the talk about the soon-to-be-launched Lib/O site; > http://test.libreoffice.org/ What is the right answer at the moment, I don't know ... so I'd better describe the current status and letting you decide. If one looked more closely at the mails, you might have noticed that David mentioned a private conversation. I used this talk to ask where to put comments and suggestions, since I felt a bit lost - although I stepped in rather late (which is true for all recent topics, unfortunately). To me, speaking as an UX guy, there are some major usability flaws on the new website (mainly navigation, individual site structure, and text formatting/semantics). Since the text heavily uses text, I fear that it misses attractiveness or sometimes even helpfulness for all the people we want to address. This just being a summary - I've put up a more detailed list within my mail to David. Some of the issues had been covered by my first attempt for the site menu concept - you might have noticed my proposal for the site [1]. This kicked of a discussion whether the site suites the needs of the users, when to put it online, and when to integrate feedback. Personally, I think that we need to improve some parts of the site before it gets online. David instead, proposes to go live as soon as possible and to integrate improvements later on. Although I don't agree with David, he is right when it comes to "realizing" the improvements ... if there is nobody who jumps in, then any further suggestion doesn't make sense. Okay, I hope this clarifies the current status a bit ... [1] http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bbnG0Hny0SpccJIZsGp72A?feat=directlink > I know this is a work-in-progress and I see the hard work that was put > into its realisation. So I don't mean to undermine any efforts so far. > But if the site is going to be live, I'd like to help address the > overall appearance so it doesn't look so "raw". I've uploaded a couple > of quick mock-ups here; > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Interim_Website_Design_proposals Cool! > They show a potential arrangement for the Homepage and an example of a > two-tiered navigation. > (Past usability concerns about this type of horizontal menu bar can be > addressed using some intelligent JavaScript). > If I've jumped the gun, or contributed unnecessarily on a topic that has > already been finalised, my apologies and no harm done. > I just want to help ensure Lib/O puts its best foot forward. Concerning the last statement - just great :-) I think there is currently no harm, looking at the feedback on this list. David invested quite some hard work to put together the content, now we miss a bit different structure and some helpful graphics for guiding the users. Personally, I think we will need e.g. a basic structure for recently added features, the different modules (e.g. Writer, ...), a clean support site, ... but - to be honest - I don't know how to address this at the moment. Basically, I both lack the time and the skills to do something like that - but if there would be a small team for that, I'm happy to join (provide my UX point-of-view, adding mockups and ideas, evaluating content). Time is running for the LibO 3.3 release, and the basic problems (like the navigation issues) should be resolved until then. Does this sound like a cry for help? :-) > On a less helpful note, I wrote this Email (below) some time ago in > response to the icons. For some reason it wasn't received by the list. > I've included it below because I still feel that the concern I raised > should be aired while discussion on the branding is still relevant. > I hope you find time to read it even though it is somewhat long, but > I'll understand if you don't get a chance (it *IS* Christmas after all). Strange, I didn't even get a moderation mail ... so I'm glad that you sent it again. Let's see ... > Happy Holidays everyone! > -Nik > > PS. I know this is probably more relevant to the Website list but I > didn't want to cross-post and I thought it warranted discussion on the > Design list first. > In case I've made a mistake. Undecided ;-) > UNRECEIVED EMAIL;---------------------------------------- > > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > Christoph Noack wrote: > > Okay, but - at the moment - you might be more interested in the page > > I've already mentioned: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Initial_MIME_Icons > > Can a be a real wet sock and just bring up a concern quickly before > everything is set in concrete regarding the file icons? > I noticed that the icons carry on from the current logo design. While > the logo design concept of the dog-eared document is iconic and > intuitive, I think the implementation of the logo needs some work before > it looks like a professional brand. But that may just be my opinion. If there is anything that might be implemented for the icons - go ahead to mention improvements. For the logo itself, I think we are set (given the time for the LibO release), but this isn't that much problematic, since it is "just" initial branding (although my hope is, indeed, that it doesn't look that bad). > What is more relevant right now is the derived styling of the mime-type > icons and the "reflective surface" in particular. > I'll be bold and get straight to the point: I think there is no need for > those icons to be reflective or "shiny". Mmh, now I am a bit lost - where did you see the shiny icons? Or maybe our interpretation differs, could you provide some clue, please? Personally, I'm happy with something that looks neutral and somehow timeless. Because, even if we use shiny trendy graphics, we won't fulfill this promise with our current product - it still looks like productivity software :-) Thus, concerning the initial design, I've summed up the basic visual language on the branding page - already a bit old, uncompleted, but most important - there is something we might refer to ... Visual Design (temporary description): * Clean: The visual design is straight and clean. Reduced geometric elements are combined to visualize the intended message. * Balanced: The visual design avoids any extremes. For example, neither extreme coloring nor intensive surface shining effects are used. * Friendly: The visual design creates a smooth and joyful environment. For example, rounded corners and the fresh color palette are used. Is this what you have in mind? Is there anything missing / wrong / ... basically, I tried to base all the current branding work on these few lines. > The Document Foundation (TDF) and LibreOffice have a real opportunity to > build a very strong brand from scratch. One that isn't driven by > Internet-popularised trends like Web2.0 reflections. That's an > opportunity to carve a distinct identity free from design fads and > trends. The "reflection" will lose favour in time and stop being "new" > soon. TDF should create a look that is unique and specific to it's > character and purpose. +1 [... nice thoughts and explanations of how TDF relates to its visual identity ...] Okay, I felt free to skip the remaining items, because I hope that the comments above already resolve some of the questions. And it seems better (to me), to fully understand you introduction before getting into too much detail on my side :-) Nikash, thank you so much for your ideas and thoughts ... it just feels good :-) Cheers, Christoph [1] http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bbnG0Hny0SpccJIZsGp72A?feat=directlink -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***