Btw, we'll need to update the link to http://addons.sugarlabs.org/ at
the top to the page to point to http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ when
it gets ready.
Regards,
Tomeu
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 17:51, David Farning wrote:
> Sorry there was a typo in my last email the site is actually
> http://w
Building a website for kids seems like a great idea to me. An online
extension of the Sugar interface could foster interaction between
Sugarized schools in a country and even beyond borders. The commitment
of choosing a username is not major for an existing Sugar user. And,
it could provide curious
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 2:55 PM, Carol Farlow Lerche wrote:
> I second Michael's suggestion about a web design that echoes the Sugar
> design. Think how useful this would be if carried to school servers. And
> as a basis for web-served Sugar-like activities.
This would be delightful.
* No text
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56 AM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <
bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
>
> I forcefully object to everything about this website. It is ugly,
> off-putting, unnavigable, unreadable, buggy, empty of any helpful
> information, and in many other ways among the worst websites I could
Thank you, everyone, for your feedback on the test site. The goal remains to
get the site launched very soonwe¹ll work on a revised build will that will
attempt to address the main concerns raised today.
Best,
Christian
On 2/27/09 2:55 PM, "Carol Farlow Lerche" wrote:
> I second Michael's s
I second Michael's suggestion about a web design that echoes the Sugar
design. Think how useful this would be if carried to school servers. And
as a basis for web-served Sugar-like activities.
I have to agree with the conclusion that the test design is off-putting. It
is certainly not intelligi
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 11:56:52AM -0500, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:
>David Farning wrote:
>> Sorry there was a typo in my last email the site is actually
>> http://www-testing.sugarlabs.org/
>
>I forcefully object to everything about this website. It is ugly,
>off-putting, unnavigable, unreadabl
Hmmm, I haven't noticed before this requires javascript and I was using the
noscript addon to firefox. It is VERY disconcerting to have the screen
scroll with the flashing highlight. I am not really clear on what the design
goals are but personally the design is not working for me.
On Fri, Feb 27
Hi Nate,
I agree with you completely, actually I'd have to say that you're
preaching to the choir; I'm a huge fan of Helvetica. I've been meaning
to check that film out. I've heard mixed reviews, but I think it's
something I'd enjoy.
I just think embedding a clone to replace a clone is overki
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 1:54 PM, ,Josh williams wrote:
> In my experience, most fonts in Windows look bad anyway. I don't think
> it would be worth the effort embed a helvetica clone, arial is already a
> clone of helvetica. However, when firefox 3.1 comes out embedding fonts
> is something to con
In my experience, most fonts in Windows look bad anyway. I don't think
it would be worth the effort embed a helvetica clone, arial is already a
clone of helvetica. However, when firefox 3.1 comes out embedding fonts
is something to consider. There's an outstanding article on the subject
here
h
Some information about free/libre fonts: http://www.unifont.org
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:25 PM, Christian Marc Schmidt
wrote:
>
>>
>> Adding to the visual problems is that I don't have Helvetica installed on my
>> machine. I think I'm getting the standard, ugly Arial that comes with
>> Windows
>
> Adding to the visual problems is that I don't have Helvetica installed on my
> machine. I think I'm getting the standard, ugly Arial that comes with Windows.
> Perhaps we can embed a Creative Commons licensed Helvetica clone in the site?
Thanks for your feedback, Nate. Installing Helvetica i
Christian Marc Schmidt wrote:
> Ben, perhaps you can help us write some of the content you think is
> inadequate. You are entitled to your opinion about the design, but really
> what we need is constructive criticism, as many of us have dedicated a lot
> of time to put this together.
In my opinion
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <
bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote:
> 2a. The cardinal sin, in both sites, is to prize form over function. OLPC
> didn't mind this, since they were sure that everyone who needed to know
> about OLPC already knew about it. In fact, they were t
>
> 6. The elliptical text snippets are good demo / PowerPoint fodder but
> don't help peolpe answer the questions I imagine people are going to
> come to the site to find out. Especially since they're phrased as
> statements/answers, so people with different questions have to read
> each one and
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:47 PM, Christian Marc Schmidt <
schm...@pentagram.com> wrote:
> Ben, perhaps you can help us write some of the content you think is
> inadequate. You are entitled to your opinion about the design, but really
> what we need is constructive criticism, as many of us have de
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:47:31PM -0500, Christian Marc Schmidt wrote:
> what we need is constructive criticism
1. The random color scheme is surprising and confusing to me.
2. The essential information conveyed by the main text on
http://sugarlabs.org/go/Main_Page ("The learning engine for ever
Ben, perhaps you can help us write some of the content you think is
inadequate. You are entitled to your opinion about the design, but really
what we need is constructive criticism, as many of us have dedicated a lot
of time to put this together.
Best,
Christian
On 2/27/09 12:39 PM, "Benjamin
Christian Marc Schmidt wrote:
> Ben, could you please let us know where you encountered any bugs?
Clicking "collaborative learning through rich-media expression" causes the
page to scroll to a point where the "About" button obscures the text. In
general, the floating About button is ugly, confusi
Please let me know if anyone else encounters this. I haven't seen it while
testing on Mac/PC systems in Firefox, Safari and IE...
Christian
On 2/27/09 12:12 PM, "David Farning" wrote:
> For some reason, the first couple of times I looked at the site from
> www-testing.sl.o the floating menu w
For some reason, the first couple of times I looked at the site from
www-testing.sl.o the floating menu was rather jerky.
But now I can not reproduce it.
david
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:02 AM, Christian Marc Schmidt
wrote:
> Ben, could you please let us know where you encountered any bugs?
>
>
Ben, could you please let us know where you encountered any bugs?
Thanks,
Christian
On 2/27/09 11:56 AM, "Benjamin M. Schwartz"
wrote:
> David Farning wrote:
>> Sorry there was a typo in my last email the site is actually
>> http://www-testing.sugarlabs.org/
>
> I forcefully object to every
David Farning wrote:
> Sorry there was a typo in my last email the site is actually
> http://www-testing.sugarlabs.org/
I forcefully object to everything about this website. It is ugly,
off-putting, unnavigable, unreadable, buggy, empty of any helpful
information, and in many other ways among the
Sorry there was a typo in my last email the site is actually
http://www-testing.sugarlabs.org/
___
IAEP -- It's An Education Project (not a laptop project!)
IAEP@lists.sugarlabs.org
http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/iaep
25 matches
Mail list logo
