Nick Dokos <nicholas.do...@hp.com> wrote: > Sankalp <sankalpkh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > --f46d044401de1e3ad604c6de28a7 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > I'm inclined to agree with Marcelo. > > -- > > Sankalp > > > > ******************************************************* > > If humans could mate with software, I'd have org-mode's > > babies. > > --- Chris League on Twitter. > > http://orgmode.org/worg/org-quotes.html > > ******************************************************* > > > > > > On 10 August 2012 04:44, Jude DaShiell <jdash...@shellworld.net> wrote: > > > > > Good, that probably means it's one of the more accessible and usable web > > > sites on the internet. > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: > > > > > > > Hey list, > > > > > > > > Don't want to be negative, but doesn't anyone else also think the > > > > current > > > > design is kind of amateurish and not very attractive? I also did not > > > > like > > > > the screenshot used, I preferred the previous one, it showed more org > > > > capabilities, and the colors and indentation looked better. > > > > > > > > My two cents and food for thought, > > > > > > Talk is cheap: how would you improve it? And I don't mean generalities: build > a website as you think it should be and then invite us over to take a look. > And as Jude suggests, don't forget to keep accessibility/usability issues > in mind as you design. > > Nick >
It has been pointed out to me that my comments might be taken as "overbearing". Not my intent, but I will take back the "talk is cheap" part (or repeat it to myself as the target this time) and apologize for it: I should have reread the mail before hitting send. But the larger point is still there: "I don't like it" is a legitimate response, but is not nearly as helpful as giving a list of reasons of *why* you don't like it. And providing something you *like* is even better. E.g. would the current design with the previous screen shot be OK? Or are there deeper problems? Nick
