On 11/5/05, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 05, 2005 at 04:33:08PM +0000, michael chang wrote:
> > On 11/4/05, Carol Spears <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > i considered what sort of collections of blogs i would find useful.  i
> > > also considered what could happen if only a small fraction of the gimp
> > > users added their blog to the feed.  the developers would be lost.  if
> > > there was only one feed, the news would get lost as well.
> > >
> > > i agree that some explanation would help, i got a little confused myself
> > > by the gimp object scheme this week while making them.  after a short
> > > break in working with them, i will see what i can do about adding a
> > > little more information.
> >
> > Quite nice, the clean interface makes it easy on the eyes, and it
> > looks like it'll break down nicely if someone's using a console-based
> > browser (e.g. Lynx).
> >
> thank you.  the very first thing they did when i showed my first gimp
> web site on the irc was to try it in lynx.  this is a fact for anyone
> trying to design a gimp web site.
> > Since it's already set up like that, I don't know if you want to
> > change it, but maybe a unified header + description at the top,
> > followed by a selection for Layers | Pixels | Paths would be
> > interesting... http://blogs.gimp.org/layers,
> > http://blogs.gimp.org/pixels, and http://blogs.gimp.org/paths URIs
> > would make sense (although that's less creative, i suppose, than your
> > current offerings).  If you did do something like that,
> > http://blogs.gimp.org would maybe also have the same main header as on
> > the above three sites, and then split the three aggregated feeds into
> > individual columns with mini-headers... maybe similar to the column
> > layout at http://www.google.com/ig (except not so interactive and
> > messy...)... each column would be headed b the individual "Layers",
> > "Pixels" and "Paths" blogs headings respectively.
> >
> one of my irc friends (i always forget that he is one of the people who
> actually does the work running the gnome computers -- that kind of
> friend, they are great to make and a rare human who is a friend more
> than a superhuman ruler of an actual internet domain) does not like the
> word blog.  he said that he doesn't mind the idea of it but would prefer
> that people call them web journals or web logs.
> the planet software suggests the word planet.  it is implied that the
> planets show developer web logs.  i almost missed this implication and
> called the user aggregation a planet.  there are a bunch of "planets"
> already.
> blogs.gimp.org -- what if the gimp computers started to have more than
> just me on the computer with a blog?

*shrugs* To me, blog doesn't sound right either -- it is a sort of
made-up word anyway.  But the idea of a quasi-unified interface was
just that, an idea.  The concept of a whatever.gimp.org/section seemed
to make sense to me since the content ... source-type is the same?  I
have no clue now...

Planet would sound nice, except, yes, it is way too common, and I
don't think it sounds GIMPy enough (if that's a word).

> two thoughts about putting the feeds all on one page.  1) is that
> useful? and 2) gimp is making new images for two of them everyday.
> they are random in content (somewhat) and also size.  a unified look
> more than what there is now is not more important than how cool those
> random images are, in my opinion.

Hm.  Very true, since I guess the whole purpose of the layout is to
not detract from the actual content in and of itself.  [Well, at least
I didn't suggest DHTML sliding menus or panels or something. ;)]

> i think a short text explaining whose web logs should be enough.

Well, it was just an idea -- whatever works, I say.  In any case, good luck.

 - Just my two cents
 - No man is an island, and no man is unable.
Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to