Re: Website revamp?

[TEC]

Once again, thanks for the detailed response :)

Maxim Nikulin <manikulin@gmail.com> writes: 

> >   - innovative :: does 'new' and exciting things that similar 
> >   products don't 
>
> This is the most "offensive" word for me. Minor issue is that 
> 2003 means 17 years ago, not new, but really I consider the age 
> as an advantage. I admit that the word could be must have for 
> startup fund raising but it is so general that usually I 
> consider it as an alarm that it could be used just to inflate a 
> phrase when nothing particular could be said fairly. It could 
> increase rating only if reputation of person who mentioned it is 
> known. It seems it is not only my perception: 
> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=innovative 
>
> >   - intuative :: despite doing a lot, it isn't complex to work 
> >   with, but 
> >     thoughtfully designed to be easy to use 
>
> Actually, I do not mind against "intuitive". Frankly speaking, I 
> have not noticed it at all. "Innovative" caused a kind of 
> temporary blindness. Do not take the following seriously. Every 
> forum/wiki/bug tracker engine has its own peculiarities in 
> markup requiring a special kind of intuition (even before 
> introducing of WYSITYG feature). Old joke: ... with intuitive 
> interface has been automatically upgraded, please, download 
> upgrade your intuition from the site ... It is unrelated to 
> org-mode, I consider its markup syntax as mostly convenient. 

Thanks for putting this to me this way, looking at these terms 
beyond their literal meaning, considering their use as buzzwords 
makes me re-evaluate my impression. It's unfortunate, for I 
believe that Org does truly embody these terms, but I would hate 
for the page to appear as a pile of buzzwords.

Let's change this to something else.

> There is a mix of em's and rem's, My complains are for desktop 
> version only.  Text size of 1.2em below the banner is OK for me. 
> 4em for "Org-mode" is excessively huge for me. 3rem=2.7em for 
> "An innovative" is too large as well.  2rem for a couple of 
> paragraphs in the banner ("Designed to...") is too heavy in 
> comparison to 1.2rem=1em in the banner bottom line. 

I see. I'll try some other sizes one I've done the layout 
reflowing at large sizes. While I'd like to tweak the content 
(with what exactly to being something that I have yet to work 
out), I do somewhat like the overall look - including the big 
fonts.

> I am comparing with widely used yellow "donate" paypal button. 
> On the current site the block is more noticeable due to 
> "irregularity"  of its placement. In new variant small text is 
> smoothly put to the banner bottom line somewhere after other 
> text. 

Ehhh, I can't say the current one jumps out at me at all, for a 
few reasons
- it's positioned away from the body of the text, and where the 
eyes are drawn to - it uses the same colours as the dody text, 
failing to differentiate itself in 
  this regard 
- the background colouring is quite subtle, nowhere near enough 
to make it 
  stand out 
- There are no icons. Icons as non-letters stand out from the 
text around them, 
  helping to draw attention 

To give my thoughts on the redesighed version:
- There is colour to draw the eye - The position is around the 
main design elements, and thus the path of the eyes - Icons, for 
the reason outlined above - A more contrasting background - 
Movement, as the page scrolls, they move across the middle of the 
screen 

Hence, while they may not be as /in your face/ as some donation 
promts, I'd be surprised if someone who looked at the page for 
more than a few seconds didn't notice them.

However, this is just my thoughts on it - let me know if my logic 
makes sense, and if anybody else would like to chime in that would 
be great. 

> > > I see 3 category of users requiring content different to some 
> > > extent but should be easily recognizable: 
> >
> > Mmmm. This is a good point. The essential details are 
> > communicated by the current large banner IMO 
> I am trying to say that most of the points should be addressed 
> outside of the banner. My personal opinion is that the banner is 
> overloaded already.

Mmm. A bit of slimming down wouldn't hurt I think. I'd just quite 
like there to be enough in the banner to interest and engage most 
viewers ---prioritising people giving Org a first look---

If you have any ideas for alternatives, please let me know :)

Once again, thanks for taking the time to communicate this - it's 
much appreciated :)

Timothy.