:murb: [maarten brouwers] wrote:
> Because I find the download button not really 'unfindable'. No, that's not the point. It's not about whether it's *possible* to find it. It's about whether it's visible, obvious, easy to find and whether the website encourages the user to go there. > >2) There is no way to access top-priority items like web forums, mailing > >lists and documentation. > > > > > No way to access top-priority. Let's state first; i have not done any > testing on my site, but I think the average (english understanding) user > (i'm not yet satisfied with any of the suggestions pointing non-english > people to HP's 'counterparts' in their own language) will look at my > site and will go to support for user support (and forums for end-user > support, end-user documentation). First, that's putting them further away. You are hiding some of the most important elements behind links. Second, the support page is very bad, it's overwhelming, half the links are not very useful, and most links don't fit on the concept of "support" Third, people looking for documentation will not necessarily click on "support" because documentation is not support. Again, the point is not whether it's *possible* to find something, but whether the page is well designed to make it visible and help the user understand what's behind the links. This is a very important concept. One has to draw a distinction between a task being *possible* to do, and the website being well-designed to do. If it were just about being possible we could include a huge list of links to every page of the site and call it a day. > And i'd guess developpers will go to > 'development' to see how they can help, how OOo works technically, or > just to see how development is going... etc... No: 1) The development page has as many problems as the support page, but worse. 2) What about all the non-development contributions? Take a look at the contribution page. Most of the work that volunteers do at OOo is not development. > I have to note that my premise here is the average computer probably > understands a navigation bar. 1) Only if the links are meaningfully named, *and* the important sections are actually represented at the site. Neither of these is true right now. 2) Read these articles: Title: Are Users Stupid? http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20010204.html Title: Usability 101: Introduction to Usability http://www.useit.com/alertbox/20030825.html > >4) There are few links to futher information, and they are not prominent > >at all. > > > > > What type of further information do you want? * About Us * About the product. * The 6 links to the specific OOo components. * Press kit. * OOo news, annoucements (currently well hidden). * Search. > >5) There is no space given to a press kit, or media relations. > > See point 2. I think all other sites have this type of information at > the 'about' section. That's not what journalists say they want. Did attend the IRC seminar on marketing FOSS projects? Roblimo made a very big point on this item. > >6) There is no space used to try to gather more volunteers. We depend on > >volunteers, and need to encourage people to come and help out. > > I've been thinking that, I didn't formulate that well... but I tend to. > It's difficult to explain the way opensource works in a few words to > novice users. A link to the contributing page would help. This page was already well designed to meet this purpose. > >7) There is no way for people to contact anyone. Not the community, not > >the developers. They can't report a bug. > > > I'd suggest people having problems would go to the support page, 1) See my comments above about the support page. 2) You are not there to suggest each site visitor that they do something. You have to suggest it right on the page. Please please please read a few articles on usability. It's very imortant. > I really disagree with you that this page is giving up usability. I > think intuitiveness has greatly increased with this site. No. You've removed most of the important information from the page and replaced it with a pretty graphic and a long paragraph. > Again, maybe you're facing some problems which are due to compatibility > problems 1) If I'm facing "compatibility problems" you have to fix them because otherwise other people will. 2) Removing all these links to important pages is not a compatibility problem. > but I believe the site as i made it (primary created on Firefox 1.0 full > screen on WinXP with a screenresolution of 1152x864 on a 17" display) > is usable. 1) I have firefox on 1024x768. 2) The screen resolution are *not* the causes for unsuability. You are confusing usability with "works for me" and "pretty". 3) It's not enough that the page work *for you*. It has to work for most users, and most users are not use. It's not about what you want, it's about providing the things most people want. Look at the approach we took to design the current page: * First we layed out a list of tasks users need the home page for, and organized them in order or priority. * Next we designed the layout of the page to correspond to those tasks in a way that corresponds to the priorities laid out. Your site doesn't show this process. Furthermore, it is an example of a major failing in usability: You're asking yourself "what do I want to tell the user?" instead of "what did the user come here for?" And the site doesn't indicate thinking of an order of priorities. I can't tell what your top priority is other than telling the user about OOo. It doesn't make much of an effort to encourage the user to try it, download it, and get help or documentation when he needs it. -- Daniel Carrera | There is no urge so great as for one man to Join OOoAuthors today! | edit another man's work. http://www.oooauthors.org | -- Mark Twain --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
