Re: [libreoffice-design] The interim website
Hi Nik, all, Great to have you back officially :) On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Nik wrote: > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > I know this isn't something on our current to-do list or a priority, but > I've been watching the talk about the soon-to-be-launched Lib/O site; > http://test.libreoffice.org/ > > I know this is a work-in-progress and I see the hard work that was put into > its realisation. So I don't mean to undermine any efforts so far. > But if the site is going to be live, I'd like to help address the overall > appearance so it doesn't look so "raw". I've uploaded a couple of quick > mock-ups here; > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Interim_Website_Design_proposals Yeah, it is pretty raw. Your mockups, on the other hand, quick or not, look polished. I like the two tiered navigation design - I don't know if you saw my mockup(s), but yours is definitely better in this respect. I'm not sure if the contrast on the second tier is sufficient though. > They show a potential arrangement for the Homepage and an example of a > two-tiered navigation. > (Past usability concerns about this type of horizontal menu bar can be > addressed using some intelligent JavaScript). > If I've jumped the gun, or contributed unnecessarily on a topic that has > already been finalised, my apologies and no harm done. > I just want to help ensure Lib/O puts its best foot forward. +1. I agree with Christoph in that we shouldn't rush to get the website out at all costs (or something near that), but then again I am a bit of an idealist. The obvious problem is that as the design team, we'll need time to come up with a finalised design, and from David et al's perspective, that's time we don't have. We can always improve on the design, but, as Christoph stated, this is all initial branding. > On a less helpful note, I wrote this Email (below) some time ago in response > to the icons. For some reason it wasn't received by the list. > I've included it below because I still feel that the concern I raised should > be aired while discussion on the branding is still relevant. > I hope you find time to read it even though it is somewhat long, but I'll > understand if you don't get a chance (it *IS* Christmas after all). > > Happy Holidays everyone! > -Nik > > PS. I know this is probably more relevant to the Website list but I didn't > want to cross-post and I thought it warranted discussion on the Design list > first. > In case I've made a mistake. > > > UNRECEIVED EMAIL; > > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > Christoph Noack wrote: >> Okay, but - at the moment - you might be more interested in the page >> I've already mentioned: >> http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Initial_MIME_Icons > > Can a be a real wet sock and just bring up a concern quickly before > everything is set in concrete regarding the file icons? > I noticed that the icons carry on from the current logo design. While the > logo design concept of the dog-eared document is iconic and intuitive, I > think the implementation of the logo needs some work before it looks like a > professional brand. But that may just be my opinion. We've already had discussions here on improving the initial branding, and some of that has been implemented (e.g. branding colors). Beyond that, we were initially caught between creating/adapting/supplying artwork for a product that needs to ship very soon and creating a comprehensive branding framework that is done in an open source manner. We couldn't do both; rushing now to create a comprehensive identity would have been too chaotic. So, for now, our primary focus is on the initial branding which requires us to be reasonably conservative; as time passes we will shift to the latter. > What is more relevant right now is the derived styling of the mime-type > icons and the "reflective surface" in particular. > I'll be bold and get straight to the point: I think there is no need for > those icons to be reflective or "shiny". Hmm, there was no intention (on my part) to make the icons shiny/reflective (a la the 3.0 splash screen) - if you're referring to the lighter patch near the top (which was a transparent segment with a solid white fill in my proposal), that's intended to denote a document header rather than a reflection (at least in my mind), and could be removed if it gives the wrong impression. > [...] > This is just a request. But I hope you'll consider it an important one for > getting our brand right? > I know I'm raising concerns without offering solutions and I know it may not > be practical to do so at this time. > I'm sure I'm being idealistic while you're all being pragmatic, but I just > thought it was worth asking in case it was an oversight. Fair enough (I, too, have been guilty of reflections in the past, I'm still guilty of idealism, etc), and it's great to have your feedback - feel free to take the mockups and make changes if you have a specific visio
Re: [libreoffice-design] The interim website
Hi Nik, what a pleasure to see you (again) :-) Especially bringing some nice mockups and ideas with you ... Since you've added another topic at the end, I'd really like to address this, too. Am Donnerstag, den 23.12.2010, 02:43 +1100 schrieb Nik: > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > I know this isn't something on our current to-do list or a priority, but > I've been watching the talk about the soon-to-be-launched Lib/O site; > http://test.libreoffice.org/ What is the right answer at the moment, I don't know ... so I'd better describe the current status and letting you decide. If one looked more closely at the mails, you might have noticed that David mentioned a private conversation. I used this talk to ask where to put comments and suggestions, since I felt a bit lost - although I stepped in rather late (which is true for all recent topics, unfortunately). To me, speaking as an UX guy, there are some major usability flaws on the new website (mainly navigation, individual site structure, and text formatting/semantics). Since the text heavily uses text, I fear that it misses attractiveness or sometimes even helpfulness for all the people we want to address. This just being a summary - I've put up a more detailed list within my mail to David. Some of the issues had been covered by my first attempt for the site menu concept - you might have noticed my proposal for the site [1]. This kicked of a discussion whether the site suites the needs of the users, when to put it online, and when to integrate feedback. Personally, I think that we need to improve some parts of the site before it gets online. David instead, proposes to go live as soon as possible and to integrate improvements later on. Although I don't agree with David, he is right when it comes to "realizing" the improvements ... if there is nobody who jumps in, then any further suggestion doesn't make sense. Okay, I hope this clarifies the current status a bit ... [1] http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/bbnG0Hny0SpccJIZsGp72A?feat=directlink > I know this is a work-in-progress and I see the hard work that was put > into its realisation. So I don't mean to undermine any efforts so far. > But if the site is going to be live, I'd like to help address the > overall appearance so it doesn't look so "raw". I've uploaded a couple > of quick mock-ups here; > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Interim_Website_Design_proposals Cool! > They show a potential arrangement for the Homepage and an example of a > two-tiered navigation. > (Past usability concerns about this type of horizontal menu bar can be > addressed using some intelligent JavaScript). > If I've jumped the gun, or contributed unnecessarily on a topic that has > already been finalised, my apologies and no harm done. > I just want to help ensure Lib/O puts its best foot forward. Concerning the last statement - just great :-) I think there is currently no harm, looking at the feedback on this list. David invested quite some hard work to put together the content, now we miss a bit different structure and some helpful graphics for guiding the users. Personally, I think we will need e.g. a basic structure for recently added features, the different modules (e.g. Writer, ...), a clean support site, ... but - to be honest - I don't know how to address this at the moment. Basically, I both lack the time and the skills to do something like that - but if there would be a small team for that, I'm happy to join (provide my UX point-of-view, adding mockups and ideas, evaluating content). Time is running for the LibO 3.3 release, and the basic problems (like the navigation issues) should be resolved until then. Does this sound like a cry for help? :-) > On a less helpful note, I wrote this Email (below) some time ago in > response to the icons. For some reason it wasn't received by the list. > I've included it below because I still feel that the concern I raised > should be aired while discussion on the branding is still relevant. > I hope you find time to read it even though it is somewhat long, but > I'll understand if you don't get a chance (it *IS* Christmas after all). Strange, I didn't even get a moderation mail ... so I'm glad that you sent it again. Let's see ... > Happy Holidays everyone! > -Nik > > PS. I know this is probably more relevant to the Website list but I > didn't want to cross-post and I thought it warranted discussion on the > Design list first. > In case I've made a mistake. Undecided ;-) > UNRECEIVED EMAIL; > > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > Christoph Noack wrote: > > Okay, but - at the moment - you might be more interested in the page > > I've already mentioned: > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Initial_MIME_Icons > > Can a be a real wet sock and just bring up a concern quickly before > everything is set in concrete regarding the file icons? > I noticed that the icons carry on
Re: [libreoffice-design] The interim website
Hi Hillar! Although I'm currently not directly involved in the website development, I forwarded this issue (amongst others) to David, who is currently working on the content. He is aware of the fact - and he promised to resolve it. Thus, thanks for any hint :-) Cheers, Christoph Am Mittwoch, den 22.12.2010, 17:57 +0200 schrieb Hillar Liiv: > Hi! > > One thing what I don't like about libreoffice test page is that if I click > to preview pictures it is sending me to download page. I think the better > solution will be when it is sending to screenshot page or the same but > larger preview screenshot. [...] -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-design] The interim website
Hi! One thing what I don't like about libreoffice test page is that if I click to preview pictures it is sending me to download page. I think the better solution will be when it is sending to screenshot page or the same but larger preview screenshot. Happy Holidays!! Hillar 2010/12/22 Nik > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > I know this isn't something on our current to-do list or a priority, but > I've been watching the talk about the soon-to-be-launched Lib/O site; > http://test.libreoffice.org/ > > I know this is a work-in-progress and I see the hard work that was put into > its realisation. So I don't mean to undermine any efforts so far. > But if the site is going to be live, I'd like to help address the overall > appearance so it doesn't look so "raw". I've uploaded a couple of quick > mock-ups here; > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Interim_Website_Design_proposals > > They show a potential arrangement for the Homepage and an example of a > two-tiered navigation. > (Past usability concerns about this type of horizontal menu bar can be > addressed using some intelligent JavaScript). > If I've jumped the gun, or contributed unnecessarily on a topic that has > already been finalised, my apologies and no harm done. > I just want to help ensure Lib/O puts its best foot forward. > > On a less helpful note, I wrote this Email (below) some time ago in > response to the icons. For some reason it wasn't received by the list. > I've included it below because I still feel that the concern I raised > should be aired while discussion on the branding is still relevant. > I hope you find time to read it even though it is somewhat long, but I'll > understand if you don't get a chance (it *IS* Christmas after all). > > Happy Holidays everyone! > -Nik > > PS. I know this is probably more relevant to the Website list but I didn't > want to cross-post and I thought it warranted discussion on the Design list > first. > In case I've made a mistake. > > > UNRECEIVED EMAIL; > > Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, > > Christoph Noack wrote: > > Okay, but - at the moment - you might be more interested in the page > > I've already mentioned: > > > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Initial_MIME_Icons > > Can a be a real wet sock and just bring up a concern quickly before > everything is set in concrete regarding the file icons? > I noticed that the icons carry on from the current logo design. While the > logo design concept of the dog-eared document is iconic and intuitive, I > think the implementation of the logo needs some work before it looks like a > professional brand. But that may just be my opinion. > > What is more relevant right now is the derived styling of the mime-type > icons and the "reflective surface" in particular. > I'll be bold and get straight to the point: I think there is no need for > those icons to be reflective or "shiny". > > The Document Foundation (TDF) and LibreOffice have a real opportunity to > build a very strong brand from scratch. One that isn't driven by > Internet-popularised trends like Web2.0 reflections. That's an opportunity > to carve a distinct identity free from design fads and trends. The > "reflection" will lose favour in time and stop being "new" soon. TDF should > create a look that is unique and specific to it's character and purpose. > > Paper is the heart of the Design concept of TDF right now if I'm not > mistaken. I've never seen a piece of paper reflect light like a metallic > object. > Let's stick to the properties of common paper for our Design inspiration > and we'll be more consistent for having done so; > Flat, smooth, porous and fibrous = Honest, simple, warm and natural. > > This is just a request. But I hope you'll consider it an important one for > getting our brand right? > I know I'm raising concerns without offering solutions and I know it may > not be practical to do so at this time. > I'm sure I'm being idealistic while you're all being pragmatic, but I just > thought it was worth asking in case it was an oversight. > > -Nik > > PS. I'm guilty of using more than my fair share of the shine/reflection, > but the first time I heard the name "The Document Foundation" I just knew > this wouldn't be the place for that kind of Design. It just doesn't suit the > cause. I hope I'm being more constructive and less obstructive. For what > it's worth, I like the icons, I just don't think they're entirely > appropriate? > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to > design+h...@libreoffice.org > List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[libreoffice-design] The interim website
Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, I know this isn't something on our current to-do list or a priority, but I've been watching the talk about the soon-to-be-launched Lib/O site; http://test.libreoffice.org/ I know this is a work-in-progress and I see the hard work that was put into its realisation. So I don't mean to undermine any efforts so far. But if the site is going to be live, I'd like to help address the overall appearance so it doesn't look so "raw". I've uploaded a couple of quick mock-ups here; http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:Nik#Interim_Website_Design_proposals They show a potential arrangement for the Homepage and an example of a two-tiered navigation. (Past usability concerns about this type of horizontal menu bar can be addressed using some intelligent JavaScript). If I've jumped the gun, or contributed unnecessarily on a topic that has already been finalised, my apologies and no harm done. I just want to help ensure Lib/O puts its best foot forward. On a less helpful note, I wrote this Email (below) some time ago in response to the icons. For some reason it wasn't received by the list. I've included it below because I still feel that the concern I raised should be aired while discussion on the branding is still relevant. I hope you find time to read it even though it is somewhat long, but I'll understand if you don't get a chance (it *IS* Christmas after all). Happy Holidays everyone! -Nik PS. I know this is probably more relevant to the Website list but I didn't want to cross-post and I thought it warranted discussion on the Design list first. In case I've made a mistake. UNRECEIVED EMAIL; Hi Bernhard, Christoph, all, Christoph Noack wrote: > Okay, but - at the moment - you might be more interested in the page > I've already mentioned: > http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/User:ChristophNoack/Initial_MIME_Icons Can a be a real wet sock and just bring up a concern quickly before everything is set in concrete regarding the file icons? I noticed that the icons carry on from the current logo design. While the logo design concept of the dog-eared document is iconic and intuitive, I think the implementation of the logo needs some work before it looks like a professional brand. But that may just be my opinion. What is more relevant right now is the derived styling of the mime-type icons and the "reflective surface" in particular. I'll be bold and get straight to the point: I think there is no need for those icons to be reflective or "shiny". The Document Foundation (TDF) and LibreOffice have a real opportunity to build a very strong brand from scratch. One that isn't driven by Internet-popularised trends like Web2.0 reflections. That's an opportunity to carve a distinct identity free from design fads and trends. The "reflection" will lose favour in time and stop being "new" soon. TDF should create a look that is unique and specific to it's character and purpose. Paper is the heart of the Design concept of TDF right now if I'm not mistaken. I've never seen a piece of paper reflect light like a metallic object. Let's stick to the properties of common paper for our Design inspiration and we'll be more consistent for having done so; Flat, smooth, porous and fibrous = Honest, simple, warm and natural. This is just a request. But I hope you'll consider it an important one for getting our brand right? I know I'm raising concerns without offering solutions and I know it may not be practical to do so at this time. I'm sure I'm being idealistic while you're all being pragmatic, but I just thought it was worth asking in case it was an oversight. -Nik PS. I'm guilty of using more than my fair share of the shine/reflection, but the first time I heard the name "The Document Foundation" I just knew this wouldn't be the place for that kind of Design. It just doesn't suit the cause. I hope I'm being more constructive and less obstructive. For what it's worth, I like the icons, I just don't think they're entirely appropriate? -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/design/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
