Am 28.07.2014 19:25, schrieb Gary Willoughby:
On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 10:38:12 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
"completely the wrong way to design anything.", "current design look
ridiculous", "poor amateurish design", "i wish you would stop right
now" - all of those comments look pretty destructive to me.
No, that's the truth! You can sugar coat it all you want but at
the end of the day you have to be blunt and honest if you want
professional results.
That may be the case in a professional setting where everyone is payed
to do the work. But in a community of volunteers this probably just
leads to no results at all, because everyone involved gets discouraged.
I'm not talking about sugar coating things, but about constructive
criticism, suggesting improvements in addition to pointing out what is bad.
I did in fact start conversing with w0rp in a more congenial
manner but his childish attitude was when i decided to stop
pulling punches. My first comment was to suggest some javascript
libraries which was ignored. Then i pleaded with w0rp to use the
correct logo and colors. Which was then dismissed as he thought
*his* logo was better than the official one.
My perception was that he stated that his logo was just a placeholder
and that someone would still have to get it right. The colors, as far as
I can see, match the original logo pretty well, even though there are
less highlights.
See the first reply in this post in which i outlined my position:
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]
and tell me again who is being destructive. In that same thread
Walter is quoted as saying: "All excellent points, and I agree
with you on all of them. And I like the current logo, and want to
keep it." and yet w0rp still insists on going forward with this
terrible design.
There have been quite some different opinions on the logo topic, and
personally I think that removing the "button" border is absolutely fine,
while shape and color are important not to alter without very good
reason. My understanding was that w0rp was basically intending to just
flattening the logo, although I see that changing the shape has also
been part of the discussion. My perception also was that Walter
understood that the logo was to be completely changed instead of just
flattened, but I may be completely wrong, of course.
Anyway what's far worse is that the licensing situation of the current
logo isn't clear and worst case it could mean that we'd have to switch
the logo. But sorry, this is getting off topic.
Truth or not doesn't have to have anything to do with being
destructive or constructive. Most of the time there is a good truth
and a bad truth and just focusing on the bad side can be pretty
destructive.
You're joking right? Anyone can see it's terrible and needs to be
done better. There are no versions of truth!
I'm not joking. There are some substantial improvements regarding the
global page navigation. The planned search feature would also be a big
improvement. The rest of the page is currently modeled after the mockup
that got posted by the OP and really hasn't been subject to any deeper
thoughts so far.
This is what I mean with the positive truth, and what just bothered me
is when you started to completely dismiss the whole project as bad. I
just don't like talking in purely black and white, because reality
almost never is.
Also, and this needs to be stressed, the major part of w0rp's work so
far is about the technical basis. You dismissed that as a minor detail,
but it is not. It's a part of the whole thing that also needs to get
done and someone has to do it. The good thing is that it is - with the
help of good semantic HTML and good use of CSS - mostly independent of
the site layout and styling.
What I'd wish for would be something like s/i wish you would stop
right now/i'd suggest to .../g - or maybe pledge for a professional
web designer? Just something that brings us forward instead of just
promoting stagnancy.
I tried but was immediately dismissed.
I think that the discussion just too quickly went into an all or nothing
argument, which is always difficult to resolve. And I guess this was
also at least part of the reason why you stopped with suggestions and
why w0rp possibly has troubles accepting valid criticism from you...
Anyway, what about making some quick mockups or design rules that could
be used as a basis for a more principled approach? But I have to admit
that this forum is not the ideal place to work on something like this.
We need a much more structured approach to answer questions such as the
ones Ola posted. Maybe using a separate newsgroup or mailing list + the
wiki.
