> I think the *code* and *quality* of documentation mean a lot more than > whether we have consistent colors and branding. Again - if we have anything > that's just hideous to look upon in the wiki, we should certainly fix it. I'm all for quality of content and code, but we need to keep in mind that people tend to judge the book by its cover - especially the new comers. In comparison, the CS layout / usability is hands down one of the best and pleasant layouts I've worked with. Wiki - needs a little help - though as you said, should not be a high priority.
- FW: Wiki visual guidlines Kelcey Damage (BT)
- Re: FW: Wiki visual guidlines Joe Brockmeier
- RE: FW: Wiki visual guidlines Sonny Chhen
- RE: FW: Wiki visual guidlines kdamage
- RE: FW: Wiki visual guidlines kdamage
- Re: FW: Wiki visual guidlines Joe Brockmeier
- RE: FW: Wiki visual guidlines kdamage
- Re: FW: Wiki visual guidlines Joe Brockmeier
- RE: FW: Wiki visual guidline... Musayev, Ilya
- Re: Wiki visual guidline... Mathias Mullins
- Re: Wiki visual guidline... Kelceydamage@bbits
- Re: Wiki visual guidline... John Kinsella
- Re: Wiki visual guidline... Mark Hinkle
- RE: Wiki visual guidline... kdamage
- Re: Wiki visual guidline... Joe Brockmeier
- Re: Wiki visual guidline... Sebastien Goasguen
- Re: Wiki visual guidline... John Kinsella
- RE: FW: Wiki visual guidlines Radhika Puthiyetath