Hi Daniel,
Daniel Carrera wrote:
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.What I tried to say is that it is not only possible, but its the biggest link on the page, placed in the center. And text on the page directs you to this button.
What is important? You say downloading, I agree, but top priority is a realy fague. I think it's top priority to serve the novice users; giving them an option to download, and a way to get support (under support). Developpers and others can look further.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"Agree! Well, that shouldn't be the problem of the homepage, but of the support page, this one should be redesigned also!
Third, people looking for documentation will not necessarily click on "support" because documentation is not support.To me documentation means two things; documentation of how the program has been written (technical), and handbook (for end-users). The latter is, I believe, 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.Maybe support should be renamed, or maybe i'll put some javascripting in which will directly give more information of what is behind the links (i alread have tooltips on the menu items (using the 'title' attribute))
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.Think that's currently being done. For great usability there should be clear navigation. And not giving people too many options. It's not wrong to have things a click away when these are not top priority. It clears up the page making the top priority items more visible, and this is what I tried to do. Top priority is:
1. Have people to download (just click the download butten (and even the download tab should get them quickly to downloading openoffice).
2. Giving end-user support
Again this should not be the problem of the homepage, but their problem (and we should give them a good hint, or even alternative design to clear things up).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.Well, maybe we should rename development to contribute or something. Maybe a 'how can i help' (or todo) on the bottom of every page...
Agree to the first part, but the important sections are represented, in the navigation bar. Maybe naming is not definite.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.
Again, usability is not about a few Nielsen alertboxes. I've had 4 years of college on the subject, and am still reading (even scientific) literature on the subject. I don't say I've used this literature to ground for every design descision I've made (much I've 'just' done in a way i like), but I understand problems in usability and I believe my site is not a difficult site to use... again the pages people are directed to are, but these then need a redesign, the homepage shouldn't be stuffed up with their problems.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.hat type of further information do you want?
* About Us
* About the product.
I've filed it under 'about'.
* The 6 links to the specific OOo components.
This i might indeed clear up a bit
* Press kit.
I've filed it under 'about'
* OOo news, annoucements (currently well hidden).If you've had read my text put under the boxes, you would have noticed my intentions are to put a similar to matthews type of information below the boxes already created on my mockup.
it's there, at top right, I believe this is a very good place for search (... will look after, maybe it needs to be repositioned).* Search.
I didn't attend this IRC seminar, and don't know Roblimo either, but I believe filing everything a journalist need under about is not a bad design descision. I find it logic. But maybe you have links studies that states that journalist never tend to click on about to get more information about the product?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.
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.
I'll add it.
Again: then this page needs a redesign also. I think we should do things right now, and not create another problem (workarounds). You are not talking about usabilities, you're talking about workarounds around something which has a bad information architecture (at least to users of the site).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.I think you really are denying the power of the navigation bar, this is a way to suggest ways where to go from there. Again, pages linked from this navigation bar should also be usable.
Please please please read a few articles on usability. It's very imortant.I've a technical bachelor and a MA degree for Interaction Design (again 4 years of college) and next month I'll start an MSc course for usability, and this is not because i don't know anything about usability.
People can read, and I've already said I will look at other options clearing it up.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.
gain, maybe you're facing some problems which are due to compatibility problems1) If I'm facing "compatibility problems" you have to fix them because otherwise other people will.
I know... but I never said I was finished.
2) Removing all these links to important pages is not a compatibility problem.
...
Well, sites can be usable on higher resolutions, and unusable on low resolutions. You are talking about accessibility. Well, i really like to use standards, when you turrn of styles, you still have a nice page to navigate through.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.Again, I asked how others experienced the site, and how it is being displayed, because I know websites needs thorough testing on a wide variety on platforms and browsers.
It's really difficult to tell what a user wants, but I think _after_ a user has used the navigation bar we can much better discriminate between users. The front page should in my opinion be a big welcome to all, including novice users and guiding them easily to downloading openoffice.org, and the link where they can find support might be highlighted even better for them, but the actual support options should be on a different page.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.
My 0.02 eurocents.
g.,
Maarten
--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
