Louis Suarez-Potts wrote: > >As you can see, I have no idea how to appease everyone. > > Of course; it is not your job to appease. What the samples have shown > however is the range of some possibilities.
The problem around here is that we are forever looking at "the range of possibilities" while we maintain the status quo and do nothing at all. Talk talk talk, that's all that goes on around here. And the people who do the most work only end up frustrated because it's usually all for naught. > There is still room for further discussion, of course. Darn it! There is *always* "room for further discussion". Have you ever seen a subject in this world that didn't have room for further discussion? This is a textbook example of what I've been arguing against. Don't ask "is there room for further discussion?" that's even worse than asking "is this site perferct?" or "is there anything I don't completely like?" People should start asking "is this *better* that what we have today?" If the answer is "yes" then we change it. We can always make another change later. > But our primary interest is in creating a site that pleasingly guides > visitor attention to where we want it to go. And if we keep doing complete redesigns every time we're almost finished we will never get there. > Kay and I, the leads of the website project, have been fairly clear in > our own interests, and also process, I think. Process is lacking, unless pocess means endless discussion. That's been my experience over the last 18 months. Do I think the site is perfect? Hell no. Is there anything I think could be improved? Yes, but I ain't gonna tell you because the site is already more than good enough to replace the current one, and then some. > >Is there anyone who is opposed to this suggestion? > > +1 > > But... > > I agree we should develop your proposal. I am also curious to see if > Maarten will develop his own proposal and would like to see it. No, that wasn't the question. Quote carefully: M> So... I propose we fully develop the CVS 1.12 of my proposal until M> wecan think of no more ways to ENHANCE it. We want a fine comb, not M> one that will require the changing of the web site altogether. Notice that the emphasis is on "ENHANCE" and that Matthew elaborates that we want a "fine comb" and not a major redesign. -- Daniel Carrera | I know everything, I just can't remember Join OOoAuthors today! | it all at once. http://www.oooauthors.org | :-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
