Hi, New user thoughts... I think the Fossil website as a Wiki existence should be more clearly explained. I too was "fooled" by this. An inherent feature, is portrayed initially as a bare bones, minimalist website. 1st impressions != lasting impression ;) The name is fine. If this was called bagofpooh I'd still use it! Some of my code belongs there instead anway.
-Steve On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Williams, Brian <[email protected]> wrote: > Stephen, you hit on the point that was a revelation to me (back in the > day). > The Fossil web site isn't a web site; it's the WIKI. > > The discussions of page design aside, perhaps that fact should be > mentioned in the first bullet. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Stephen > De Gabrielle > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:12 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming... > > As, I hope, all list subscribers know, fossil is easily reskinnable. > Being self-hosting, the fossil site is too. > > Can I suggest a competition with a few simple criteria & small reward > - site should continue to be accessible for the sight impaired > - CSS & HTML only. (extensive js can require more long term > maintenance than is desirable) > - should be accessable on a wide variety of devices (android/iPhone > type smartphone browsers, tablets & netbooks 7?-10 inch both > orientations, right up to my nice 24 inch screen) > - should cope with users changing the browser font size, and setting > low screen resolutions on small desktops/laptops > - the logo should still be a fossil of some sort. Petrified wood and > microscopic fossils allowed > - changing the name is not an option. > > Winner gets the respect and admiration of their peers, runners up get > included as selectable skins. > > What do you think? > > Stephen > > On Thursday, March 3, 2011, Kristoffer Lawson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 3 Mar 2011, at 13:41, Richard Hipp wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 4:26 AM, Trou Macacq <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Design matters. >>> >>> >>> Design != eye-candy >> >> Actually there is research to the opposite :-) >> >> When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be > easier (not to mention more tempting, which should be obvious). The > exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks > good, is rated as being easier. >> >> I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do > with a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly > justify spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it > stands I wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to > play around with it. >> >> For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax > monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to > load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd > be looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive. >> >> -- >> Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/ >> http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic > startups >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fossil-users mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users >> > > -- > > -- > Stephen De Gabrielle > [email protected] > Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911 > Mobile +44 (0)79 85189045 > http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > _______________________________________________ > fossil-users mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users > _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
