Steinar H. Gunderson said...
|On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 02:33:01PM +0200, Christoph Rauch wrote:
|>I'm going to ask a graphic-designer, who is a friend of me, to help us with
|>the design or layout. Perhaps we could have some input from a different
|>viewpoint. (user vs. developer)

In terms of layout, the gimp site is head and shoulders
above the vast majority of sites out there now.  I think
if we have a redesign there should be a good reason for it.
A fersh look is NOT important.  Fresh content is far more
important.  Consistency is a *good* thing.

Marketers will tell you that you have to change the site
to make it moer appealing,. keep people coming back.  We
don;t want them to come back to see the *site* - we want
them to find the information tehy need, to make the GIMP
more useful, to help the GIMP community, etc. If we happen
to win awards, that's great, but not crucial.

It actually *annoys* people to go to a favorite site
and suddenly have to hunt for things.  The GIMP menus
haev been copied by a number of sites.  People love
it.  The things they don't love are broken links and
stale, outdated content.  That's where the effort should

I know, I know.  Since we're probably going to rewrite
the site in something less arcane and more known, now
is the ideal time to revamp the look and feel.  Let's
just make sure it's worth the effort, and we don't lose
things - like the top notch menu system, etc.

|Just notice that being a good paper designer does _not_ neccessarily
|make you a good web designer. The web is a really special medium, and
|most `conventional' designers tend not to understand its ways -- and you
|end up with slow, unnavigatable, resolution-fixed crap.

Amen.  A lot of sites that started out useful are completely
absurd now, and I avoid many of the sites I once considered
essential to my job, news, and the web experience (whatever
that is 8^) in general.


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to