Matthew Cruickshank wrote:
>...
> :: Very bold boxy looking with no flow (all the rage 3
> years ago). Sort of a pasty Zeldman-esque design ;)
I *am* a web designer and writer, and a lot of the work I've
done over the past five years *has* gotten imitated, for better
or worse. For instance, oddly enough, the original Mozilla.org
(http://www.mozilla.org) was copied from the simple HTML-and-CSS
layout I did [for] The Web Standards Project
(http://www.webstandards.org/): from the technique, to the color
palette, to the crude four-pixel black outlines around content
areas. Don't bother checking; the new Mozilla layout has evolved
away from that original look, though it still bears trace
elements of the original design ... By the way, I wasn't upset
by what Mozilla did; I was flattered by it. You may think it is
ugly design, though I'm sure that none of you said so to Mozilla
because you believe in the project.
-- `Jeffrey Zeldman bites back'
<http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/18/1433233.shtml>
> :: As someone else said the number of menu items makes
> it far too easy to glance over. MPT can probably
> correct me here - what is it - six items is best?
> seven?
Between six and eight, depending on the individual. It's no accident
that I suggested six top-level categories for the rearchitecture --
About the project, News & events, Software, Support, Get involved, and
Developer info.
> When I stand back and just glance at Mozilla.org (a
> popular first test for any design) it just doesn't
> interest me. What about y'all?
>...
It's fugly.
--
Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla user interface QA
Mozilla UI decisions within 48 hours, or the next one is free
