>Louis Suarez-Potts wrote:
>>>I think now with the coming of the finalisation of the redesign of
>>>the website, we should start looking at other parts of the website
>>>that need redesigning.
>>>
>>>An example of this is the Download Central website, it is quite
>>>clunky and potentially confusing.
>>>
>>>Jonathan
>>>
>>
>> I agree Download Central is clunky; I had previously asked to change
>> it so that it might more closely resemble the quite attractive
>> contributing page, <http://www.openoffice.org/contributing.html>.
>> But it's mainly just a list of other links...and graphics do not
>> alone a better site make.
>>
>> However, for the sake of sanity on this list, let's keep one
>> discussion going at a time....
>
>this is why i fully support Alexandro's idea to set a deadline for the
>home page, we should close this task (homepage) in a foreseeable
>future in order to move to the next target: Download Central
I am not sure that DC is the next target, actually. I'd rather focus on
an arguably more important page, Support.
But I think we are not quite ready to call "cloture," in this debate, or
even set a firm deadline yet, at least for this phase. As the main
rededisign is for 2.0, the beta for which is end of February, let's
think of a deadline for informal critique (this group) being no later
than 28 January. After that, a review by the project leads--two
weeks--leaving us 14-15 February, or so. (DLS is 7-9 February, other
conferences are also around then.)
As to the homepage graphic: let's change it now. Nicu, et al., we can
discuss this on [EMAIL PROTECTED], so as to reduced confusion on this list;
and besides, that's where the artists are. The conditions, to summarise
very briefly:
* must be relevant to OOo product or specific project
* must not introduce new elements that puzzle viewers unless those
elements can be related to the product or project
* conform (more or less) to etant colors and design logic, unless
there is a good reason not to.
So, as this created some controversy last time around, I will explain
why I thought the FR seagull was wrong: it introduced the seagull and
foregrounded him/her in a way that to me seemed as if it would be
confusing. We don't have a mascot. People do not really recognize the
seagull as representing OOo (yet).
However, one could get around these stipulations by having a blurb
defining what the seagull, to take an example, is and is doing there.
Sure, some will be confused. Some are always confused. But in this way
we can have things on the homepage that minimize confusion while giving
viewers some sense of what OOo is.
Still, I and I think Kay and others, would rather have a web graphic on
the homepage that really reduces the need for explanation, if at all
possible while also informing visitors of OOo.
Cheers,
louis
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
