You may have to reload your page a couple of times for the changes to update.
On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:46 AM, John Roper <[email protected]> wrote: > >Text should stand out. It should be dark. Sometimes it should be bold; > >judiciously used of course like it is with the current main banner that > >says: > > >LilyPond ... music notation for everyone > > >Why hide or mute text that is intended to be read? > > The common design standards use sans-serif font and text color that is a > little less than black. I disagree that this makes it seem "muted". One of > the major things on the site that make it look antiquated is the LilyPond > intro using the text that looks like it came from a server error message. > > >On the old site, the links don't wrap. What I see on the > >new proposed site has wrapping going on all over in the right-hand > >boxes. Hopefully you have an email client that will render this > >properly, if not, I imagine there are some email archives that will do > >it justice. What I see basically amounts to: > > > > Stable > > Release > > > > Download > > 2.18.2 > > > > Manuals 2.18.2 > > > > Unstable > > Release > > > > Download > > 2.19.15 > > > > Manuals > > 2.19.15 > > > >This is likely due to the way I browse (e.g. I don't use a browser full > >screen but instead split my real-estate with other windows). > > The site is (and should be on your browser) fully responsive. Even on the > smallest sizes, the text shouldn't wrap. Try reloading the page once you > have scaled the window. I have found that the text wraps less on the new > design than it does on the lilypond.org site. I have attached some images > to show what I mean. > > >LilyPond stands out, as does Home, but all the rest are a fainter white > >than before. With lilypond.org, they were a solid white, maybe somewhat > >bold, and easily readable. Now they look diminished, muted and don't > >even get much more legible when I hover my mouse over them. > > This has been fixed. > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:57 AM, David Kastrup <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Tim McNamara <[email protected]> writes: >> >> >> On Nov 29, 2016, at 3:57 AM, Andrew Bernard <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > >> >> If however you are discussing expanding the mindshare of lilypond in >> the >> >> music publishing world, then I hardly think the cosmetic appearance of >> a >> >> website is the most influential factor. That's a very shallow approach. >> >> Surely it must be the quality and engineering of the software itself >> that >> >> speaks for lilypond's virtues. >> > >> > The cosmetic appearance of the web site is most certainly an >> > influential factor in expanding the "mindshare" of Lilypond. That is >> > one of the realities of the world as it works. The quality and >> > engineering of the software itself is invisible to 99% of your >> > potential users. >> >> The engineering is not presented on the website. The "engineering" of >> entering a document into LilyPond is. That's the thing that is likely >> to be the deal breaker for people if any. So I don't see the point in >> hiding it. >> >> Even though I am aware that the decision makers and the water carriers >> are not always the same person, and getting the former to pick LilyPond >> may make the difference to the latter biting the bullet and actually >> going through with LilyPond. >> >> > Take me- I am a musician. I know nothing useful about C and it's >> > variants, Scheme, etc. Lilypond might have the most elegant code ever >> > written and I will not see it, even if you point right at it. The >> > result? I am not going to evaluate Lilypond by its engineering. >> >> But you are most certainly going to evaluate LilyPond by the >> "engineering" it forces _you_ to do. Particularly because it is not >> your comfort zone. >> >> > There's clearly some disadvantage to me for that, but at 57 years old >> > with a full-time career, I'm not going to learn how to code. >> >> At 57 years old, a computer for you is not inherently icons and >> mouse-dragging. Typists doing text processing on some 70s text >> terminals would be considered computer specialists by today's standards, >> and clearly they also would have stated that they are not going to learn >> how to code. A lot of the bullets you were willing to bite using >> LilyPond were old or expected bullets for you. >> >> I think that's part of the reason that the user base on these lists >> tends to be older on average than the general music writing populace. >> >> > For people just finding out about Lilypond, the Lilypond web site is >> > the point of entry (I first heard about Lilypond on the MacUpdate site >> > and followed the link from there). Does it say to me "this is a >> > modern, powerful application that will produce beautiful sheet music >> > that you will be proud to hand out to your peers?" Or does it say >> > "this application is the product of spit, chewing gum and baling >> > wire?" OK, I am exaggerating a lot because the current web site >> > doesn't actually say that to me, but it is dated now and looks a bit >> > hobbyist by comparison. >> >> Others have mentioned it, but I'll say it again: after the last >> reorganizations in particular, it is quite clean and efficient compared >> to a lot out there. You don't need to scroll around for the important >> stuff. And the important stuff is actually there, in mostly obvious >> places. >> >> Navigation in the documentation, like using the index, is awkwardish. >> And since one constantly quotes documentation at people, "copy a link to >> here" kind of pointers would be nice: I tend to do my searching in Info, >> then do a search engine search for key phrases in the Info version, and >> then take a look at the HTML elements to see whether there is an anchor >> nearby. But that would want fixing at the Texinfo conversion stage, not >> the general web surface. >> >> > Inasmuch as much of the FOSS community is often loathe to admit it, >> > branding does actually matter. Getting people to use the software >> > matters. Writing great free-as-in-speech software and then not >> > persuading people to give it a try tends to shoot that software in the >> > foot. An attractive, modern website can help with that. >> > >> > John's pages look pretty good and I thank him for the hours he put >> > into it. The scrolling is not annoying on my tablets but was on my >> > laptops, for some reason. That being said, having looked at the >> > sample web site on my laptops, tablets and phone, the Learn page is >> > very difficult as it stands. It's row upon row of basically >> > undifferentiated choices- if you didn't go there already knowing what >> > you wanted, the page doesn't help you choose. >> >> Well, that sounds like something that would warrant addressing >> regardless of the layout. >> >> -- >> David Kastrup >> >> _______________________________________________ >> lilypond-user mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user >> > > > > -- > John Roper > Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist > Boston, MA USA > http://jmroper.com/ > -- John Roper Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist Boston, MA USA http://jmroper.com/
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
