On Tuesday 04 December 2007 10:16:09 :murb: [maarten brouwers] wrote: > Hi Graham, and everybody else who is still with us ;) , > > First, to all, I would like to see others to join the discussion if they > are interested in something besides aesthetics, the actual content and > information to be presented. > > Graham actually convinced me that downloading OOo can be made easier for > the internet newbie (who doesn't necessarily have to be a illiterate > > when it comes to using e.g. a spreasheet program of one of our competitors): > >> 1. http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/products/firefox/ > > > > Average user sophistication level would be quite high, considerably > > higher than the average OOo user. > > and later on... > > > Firefox requires a certain level of Internet user sophistication to > > simply get to the point of having enough knowledge to know what a browser > > is. > > > > I asked a group of my students once. "What is a Web Browser." No answer > > until one lady put up a hand and said: "A blue 'e' ?" > > I questioned why it was wrong, since obviously download should become > > clear from context: > >> But the context is there, these buttons are/could be surrounded with > >> OpenOffice.org, OOo-symbols, branding elements, etc. > > > > True but context has to be "read in", that takes time, arguably longer > > than reading a simple statement. especially to an internet newbie > > > >> 2. http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/default.aspx > > > > Erk it hurts, but this I think is quite good. > > However: Sophistication requirement level again is quite high because > > your average user buys from the local shop > > > > Best thing: Dynamic content, seasonal changes. This gives people the > > impression of immediacy like they are being talked to right now > > > > I'd say it was quite good but I doubt it is used at a significant level > > > > Hard to score, I'll give it a 5 but it's hard not to be biased, add 2 to > > compensate for that. ;) > > Graham, I would say I get overwhelmed with the website, it is hard to > decide where to start, not minimalistic, which I would at least favour. > Have you been rating the site for the less sophisticated internet user?
Unfortunately possibly because of bias I went to the Itunes site first then the MSO which probably coloured it a bit for me. However the function of the page is completely different to ours. Download is way down the list of priorities. Help, activation assistance and installation assistance is higher up the scale. The dynamic graphic just makes the page more comfortable for the New User simply by adding something that is familiar, in this case seasonal cliche's. (You'll note that it has nothing to do with MSO '07) Familiarity makes people more comfortable and so they take time to look around and figure the context You will notice the extensive use of possessive Pronouns connected to the product. Important links are small but obvious. and they are grouped well > > >> 3. http://www.apple.com/itunes/ > > > > OMIGOD WTF what a bloody bombsite.. > > Too many decisions > > I was shocked by this site as well... > > >> 4. http://www.apple.com/iwork/ > > > > Nobody at apple has dialup, that is obvious. > > > :) > : > > Not bad, still requires reasonable level of web sophistication. > > > > Non intuitive links, slow loading graphics. > > > > But give it a 7 > > because? It gets a good score because when the page loads the most obvious thing other that the large graphic is the "Buy Now" button... very "E-Bay", that caters for the Apple User who just wants it now. The "Learn More" buttons are off the bottom of the screen. So Page designer has made the assumption: If the user scrolls down to reveal those buttons then he is looking for more info. > > Smart remark on the inapplicability of these sites: > > One difference between OOo and MS and Apple is that the unsophisticated > > Web user can go buy the latter's product from the local shop. > > [snipped some practical demonstration > > > www.gimp.org > > audacity.sourceforge.net > > www.inkscape.org/ > > but I wouldn't say that these are hallmarks of usability, would you, nor > would I consider these applications to be suited for 'fun' editing. Gimp > is no replacement for iPhoto I'm not familiar with i-photo but that's irrelevant in any case, this isn't a debate about the software but about the way they get people to download. The Gimp site has an attractive look but the download performance is a pain in the butt, unless you're using windows... I only install GIMP from source so that probably colours things > > > http://www.real.com > > > > On dial up the first thing you see is the "Download" Button everything > > loads after that. Little blue button on black BG. Smacks you in the > > face. I don't whether it was deliberate but the way it works is very > > cool. > > > > Or these have to be two of the most visited download pages on the net > > > > http://www.adobe.com/products/acrobat/readstep2.html > > http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/ > > Well, most browsers nowadays install these plugins almost automatically, > especially when it comes to flash. He except when you're on dialup, the last thing you do is let the bloody take over. If it's needed then download overnight. > > >> "I want to download OpenOffice.org" > >> > >> "I want to learn more about OpenOffice.org" > >> > >> "I have OpenOffice.org, but need help" > >> > >> "I have OpenOffice.org, but want to help" > >> or "I want to help OpenOffice.org" > > > > Indeed, in fact all your statements come in under the 8 word phrase > > Actually yes they would likely work better. > > I just thought of adding, I have OpenOffice.org, but want get more out > of it" > > This should then refer to the extension page. Yes, I like that a lot > > > The need in each statement is to connect the " I " with OpenOffice.org in > > the Users mind, through an action. The above fulfills that > > So then I questioned, how does it fit in with the user requirements ( > > http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/User_Pages_Requirements ): > >> - international users (you have indeed the map, but why should this > >> follow the same approach) > > ?? > > >> - we want to promote extentions, should we add "I have OpenOffice.org, > >> but want to extend it" > > > > Next level? Not sure. Sophisticated Users recognise tool bar type links > > easily in the same way we have now. Perhaps we gear the links up there > > toward that market. > > > > You could have > > Issues | Native Language | Uno | Extensions | Forum | Login | Search > > I think you are skipping hear a group, enthousiastic people, who know > that Office suites can do more, and think computing can be fun as well. > Those people want new fonts, images, cliparts, or want a small program > that can help them with their household finance, and then I have left > out this discussion the interest of companies, who might be interested > in what can be done with OpenOffice.org after some more advanced > tweaking using extensions they might create themselves. However those > users shouldn't yet be bothered with Issues, Uno etc. Btw., why is > Native Language there? There is a large non-English audience... True but the main page is in English and the NLC pages pretty much do their own thing... I'm open to suggestion here, I've been trying to get my head around this problem but I'm afraid nothing has popped up that seems like a reasonable solution > > >> - do you think it is still appropriate to include some lines explaining > >> in very global terms, e.g. "OpenOffice.org is a multiplatform and > >> multilingual office suite and an open-source project. Compatible with > >> all other major office suites, the product is free to download, use, and > >> distribute. " > > > > Yes and No. It's about prominence on launch and so long as it is > > readable but not the most prominent thing when the page launches. > > However the above statement is clear and concise and relevant and gives > > our casual "Foot traffiic" client one more nudge to hit the "I want to > > learn more...." button / icon / link. I'm more in favour than not > > I think it is wise to include it, since a click is a cost in which we > may loose some user already. Also better for search engine optimization. Fair comment, lets leave it in then. > > >> - What do you think about the one-click download issue? > > [...] > > > "I want to Download OpenOffice.org Now" links to download.openoffice.org > > with the ability to choose language and OS and so forth pretty much as is > > right now. > > > > "I want to learn more about OpenOffice.org" links to why.openoffice.org > > which does OS + Language + JRE check then the "Download" link on the why > > page is a single click. As soon as the download starts and while it is > > happening the contributing page displays. > > > > That's two clicks for a new user > > I do not see a difference in the why.openoffice.org should behave > different? Why should only why.openoffice.org have this check? because > these users are less literate? Not less literate, but certainly less sophisticated. So therefore we make the download as simple as possible and do as much for the New user as we can > > But as it seems to me, you are not that religious about one click > downloads -> it should simply be easier. Yes > > I removed the bit about optimization of the page download... we should > see about that when visual design is near completion, and about to > converted to HTML. > > Something different though, > > you have always said that buttons on the main page could directly refer > to the most appropriate subdomains. I think this is a bad idea, and I > would keep things more under control of one 'authority', being this > group. Only then we can guarantee style consistency, which is important > for the user experience as well. Maybe you don't think this is that > interesting, but I don't think the landing on the why page, which has a > totally different lay-out than the normal OpenOffice.org website (~first > page ;) ) is communicating quality. Imho, this years redesign should > include subpages for the main buttons, thus including learn, download etc. I have no issue with that, the important thing with the Why page is the richness of the content. We have nothing anywhere that approaches it in terms of information for newbies We have to be careful that we don't isolate the Homepage from all of the project pages, that would simply be bad management. The homepage is the gateway to the rest of the site. It is true that we should have some Interface Guidelines, however uniformity can be viewed as conservative, lacking in imagination, lacking in Dynamism when in fact OOo is completely the opposite I don't see any problem with having a variable look about the place. Trying to make everything the uniform will simply make it look less dynamic and doesn't allow the projects to extend their creative streaks. Sure, let's look at some interface guidelines but let's not make them so rigid that we stifle creativity. It certainly doesn't seem to worry Microsoft http://support.microsoft.com/ http://www.msn.com/ http://office.microsoft.com/en-gb/default.aspx I'm also mindful of the timeframe. Creating a new Homepage that leverages what we have already is achievable within the timeframe, then downstream we update the others. They are a resource that should not be wasted Cheers G -- Graham Lauder, INGOTs Assessor Trainer Moderator New Zealand (International Grades in Office Technologies) www.theingots.org OpenOffice.org MarCon (Marketing Contact) NZ http://marketing.openoffice.org/contacts.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
