On 12/22/05, Kevin Dangoor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 12/22/05, Jonathan LaCour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I would have to agree here that I think Karl's layout would be better > > for a brochure, magazine, or any medium other than a website. Its > > just plain too crowded for the web. > > The move to blue was a good one, but the move from 2 columns to 3 was not:
It's the newspaper habits kicking in. I'll drop a column in the next iteration. I might try out a different grid. I usually use a grid that's pretty close to the one Richard uses for web pages, so these iterations are design exercises as much as they are proposals. > Taking a look at the post-1.0 Rails site... The rails page is a pitch to new users. Richard's page is a community page. It doesn't do much to pitch the framework but is a page that continues to have value after I've adopted the framework, unlike the rails homepage. I unsuccessfully tried to do both, which I thought I could overcome with a clear enough visual hiearchy (I don't think the current design is clear enough on that front). I think I'll trend toward the community site and do less work pitching the framework. > layout 3 has a gray band at the right that is screaming out for > *something* to happen there. I like the bottom half of layout 3, but > prefer the top half of layout 2. Richard has said he didn't know what was supposed to go on the page right after he put up 3, so both 2 and 3 aren't filled with content. I assume he was saving the gray band in 3 and the entire bottom in 2 for future content.
