On Wed, 2003-10-01 at 19:05, Stephen McConnell wrote: > [resending - original post send around 24 hours ago]
> > > >So, thoughts? > > > > Big improvement over current home page. Will menus be expandable or is this > a flat structure? Which tool are you using? Planning on them to be expandable (but will still focus on simplicity). Currently using Forrest. > >Comments? > > > > Left Menu Content > ----------------- > > Under Project: > - the "License" submenu could be moved under "Resources" > - Who We Are can be merged with Community > Under Product: > - Break "Containers" into two entries - "Fortress" and "Merlin" > - Sandbox should be moved to Resources (its not product) > - Related should be moved to Resources All these sound good. I was planning on having Fortress and Merlin links expand into view when clicking on the containers link. > Under Documetation: > - API should be removed (apis should be provided under each product) Wasn't sure about this. Some times I like having all the API available, but it often seems out dated. > General comments: > ----------------- > 1. either kill "Avalon Main" on the left or "Home" on the right. > 2. too much visual noise in the header - i.e. one of the logos > should go > 3. remove "Sandbox" from the horizontal menu - keep focus on products I'll try these out and see how they work. > 4. horizontal menu items should be either brand *or* group > E.g.: brand breakdown: > "Fortress", "Merlin", "Cornerstone", "Excalibur", "Framework" > E.g.: group breakdown: > "Containment", "Components", "Utilities", "Framework" This was a big debate of mine -- project names vs. groups. I think it could go either way. I like Cornerstone and Excalibur better than Components and Utilities because if you don't introduce the names to the users early on, it just adds confusion. I like Containers because we have merlin, fortress and phoenix and who knows what will be there in a year or two. The Containers page would be a good place to explain the differences between the projects. Links to individual containers could go on from there. In the end though, I want one naming scheme that is consistently used throughout the site. > > >Criticisms? > > > > IMVHO its too visually busy (but I think resolvable by removing one of > the logos). I'll try it and we'll see how it looks. What does everyone else think about dropping a logo? I kinda like the style of the old Avalon logo, but Avalon has sort of grown beyond just the Apache Server Framework. -- jaaron <http://jadetower.org> --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
