I don't know if you guys care about my feedback, but I also do this
stuff for a living. I've added my comments below.
On 04/16/2012 10:35 AM, Noah Slater wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Benoit Chesneau<[email protected]>wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 7:13 PM, Noah Slater<[email protected]> wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 5:04 PM, Benoit Chesneau<[email protected]
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 15, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Noah Slater<[email protected]>
wrote:
Benoît:
Please don't add anything to the top navigation. The only thing I
think
we
should add there is a link to the "Quick Links" section - but I
already
tried that and the auto-scrolling breaks. If you can figure out a way
to
make it not break, please add that.
Well why not about a context menu?
What?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Context_menu
here a menu that culd appear when you click on a top navigation link.
Okay. No, I don't think we should have one of those.
Agreed, these are problematic for touch devices. It's doable, but a
royal pain in the ass.
Bob:
We link to the documentation in the Quick Links footer. The
documentation
itself includes the API reference. I don't think there's any
particular
need to link to the API reference on the page as a special call out.
Benoît:
I agree that I think the text is very big, but it's the only way we
could
get it looking good with the text stretched across the whole screen.
Perhaps the thing to do is to shorten the width of the text some how.
We
need a designer to look at it.
Why the text has to be stretched across the whole screen? It looks
good but it's actually really painful to read it.
Yes, I'm not sure what to do about it.
We need a designer to look at it.
i would first reduce the width to 40em (common width on desktop) and
the font size to something human readable then look at a designer to
make eventually things looking better (wich is far less important than
readability). I can do that quickly if anyone is OK.
I want a designer to look at this. It is readable enough that we don't have
to take any emergency action. I am happy to wait for this to be picked up
as CouchDB re-organises itself.
The font size is perfect. Smaller, and I'll override locally to actually
be able to read it. I have 20/20 vision, this size works for everything
for me from my primary 24" monitor to my android phone. This is a bit
wide for readability. For reference
http://www.readability.com/articles/0hbffwvq# In regard to the font size
on the readability link, I set text size to 120% by default, as it is
far too small. This makes it exactly the same size as the default for
couchdb landing page.
The links to the web interface for the mailing list are there. Click on
the
mailing list names themselves.
Hard time to figure I had to click on the link. That's not intuitive.
Intuition is relative.
Do you mean we should encourage people to try all the link before
finding the right content behind? None of these links clearly tell to
the user that it links to a web interface.
I disagree. I think the links are very clear.
Also I don't find the markmail link.
Markmail is not official.
But it was there and useful.
So put it on the wiki.
This site is about the bare essential facts about CouchDB.
Let's keep it simple.
Not convinced this is a big deal. How many people use the web interface
to
our mailing lists by clicking on a link, and then browsing by date? I am
willing to bet it is only me, when totting up vote.
Or any people that want to link to a discussion on others media.
Again, I think it's clear.
We can add clarification to the wiki if it turns out not to be clear.
(Which we will hear about.)
I don't think we need JIRA in the top level nav. We have it in the
Quick
Links section.
Quick link section is on the bottom. When I just want to put a ticket
I want to make it fast. That should be on top imo and really visible
for all. Its as important as "Download" is and probably more important
than the mailing lists.
I think that the next step forward is to add a Quick Links header
navigation element that would allow you to scroll to the bottom of the
page. If anyone can get this working properly, please contribute it.
Why do i have to scroll to the bottom to find a really important link.
Because that is the way the page is designed.
Opening tickets is a way to encourage people to contribute. It is also
the way we provide support. It really *must* be part of the top
navigation.
I agree. We want people to contribute. But I don't think we should have a
link to JIRA in the top of the navigation. At the moment, that area of the
page serves as in-page navigation only. I would like to keep it like that.
I appreciate that you do not want to keep it like that. But the plural of
anecdote is not data. That is, we have two opinions. It is yet to be seen
if people have a problem finding JIRA. If it is so important to YOU, you
should have a book mark for JIRA. I am not convinced that regular users of
CouchDB are going to come to this page and think "OMG WHERE CAN I REPORT
BUGS?" Maybe I am wrong, and maybe this will happen. But I want to wait and
see, and get a better feel for how this design is received before we make
any rash changes.
JIRA is a critical link, and was a pain to find before, and even worse
now. I either search for it, or url bar search for an old ticket in my
browser history and navigate JIRA from there. Really, really
fundamentally broken for anyone wanting to contribute. Do not bury the
tracker please. It's arguably more important than the wiki.
Also, really nobody knows what the hell JIRA is. In fact, couchdb is the
only software I use that I even see this on, even apache uses Bugzilla.
I know it's popular in some circles, but the name JIRA is meaningless.
If I say Bugzilla, at least I can derive some meaning out of the name.
JIRA ... what the hell does that even mean. If is an issue tracker, then
call it "Issues". What the underlying software is is meaningless. Even
worse if the name doesn't convey any meaning.
Bottom line for me, regardless if the link actually goes somewhere or
has a section of the page that links to it, dropping the JIRA name in
favor of something meaningful would be more practical.
Wendall
