Re: this is a modern way to present a project

[Dr. H. Nikolaus Schaller]

Hi,

Am 07.02.2014 um 09:26 schrieb Riccardo Mottola:

> Hi,
> 
> Lars Sonchocky-Helldorf wrote:
>> I see this as an inspirational source for those who aim to redesign the web 
>> pages of GNUstep:

yes I agree! It is well done for their purpose.

>> 
>> http://elementaryos.org/
> well, the site looks like an iOS-rip-off.. and the OS itself like a Mac ghost 
> :) And how buch bluff and hot air! Aww, my eyes are hurting!!!

Well, the subject Lars has written is correct: "modern way".

We must accept that Apple is THE leader in design arts and defining innovation. 
All world follows. Even if it contradicts our habits.

If you don't like it, it is your problem... since good web design has the clear 
and only purpose to attract people and not pleasure individuals or the artist.

I recently have hired a professional web designer for my company home page - 
and the feedback was very positive. Although I had to throw away some of my 
beloved historic approaches and fight with CSS not doing what the designer had 
proposed.

> While I don't like the overall impression it is quite coherent with the 
> product itself. Thus for sure it is a better presentation than ours (or wait, 
> we are coherent with the way we are, that's the problem!).

The question is IMHO not if you (or we) like it, but if those others like it 
that we always hope to attract and are wondering every now and then why they 
are not coming.

> What strikes is the coherency in all parts, they have a small team it 
> probably comes from that too

Yes, that is really well done, although it can certainly be optimized. A small 
team (I think the best team size is 3 people: 1 marketing guy defining all 
content and all structure, 1 web designer/artist, 1 web programmmer) guarantees 
overall coherence.

> It reassures me however that many concepts I am trying to implement in the 
> design are on that site! That means I'm on the right track.

That is good.

> They have one big advantage: they have "much less stuff". At least, at a 
> first glance, then it is half true.
> Full of features? after 10 minutes of browsing, I was only able to know about 
> 5 apps! Wow!

Well, the quantity is certainly not a problem. It is only a problem if it does 
not have a well defined structure. If they have 5 or 500 does not matter as 
long as there is a coherent mechanism to find them.

> A quite strong critique: the site hides a lot of stuff, a lot of stuff is 
> behind several clicks. That way it "looks" simple. At GNUstep, everybody 
> would complain that "his" part would be hidden deep., be his part a compiler 
> comparison or mac porting tutorial.

Well, we all come from times and ages where everything on a screen was static. 
So we tend to squeeze everything on a single page. And if it is not immediately 
visible it is not there.

The "modern" way is interaction. You scroll, you click through pages. And 
voila, you are with "hiding" things...

> The site for me has a big no: it looks simple, but it isn't.

The topic presented is not simple. But it apparently does a very good job in 
hiding this complexity for the first glimpse!

That is what visitors want: they want to have it look simple, even if it isn't. 
That is really a challenge.

Those people who have managed to achieve that should get our applause! And 
therefore I see that indeed as our prototype we should follow (not copy). 

> What, you put just three items in the navbar? and the... stuff all the rest 
> at the bottom. This is terrible! it is false-simplifcation!

No, that is how all the 99.9999% of the persons are used to who daily use the 
Web but don't know about GNUstep.

> The gnome webiste has the same trouble. It took me some time in a discussion 
> with Gregory to convince him that it is bad.
> The other big no? It is not responding, it looks bad on your phone. 
> Obvioulsy: the fact above denies that.
> 
>> 
>> for those interested: this is GTK based (sadly not GNUstep) 
>> http://elementaryos.org/docs/code/hello-world
> :)
> 
> It was nice to see some concepts, criticized here, that work there (e.g. Long 
> webpages, no scrolling sections, etc).
> 
> I will thus continue with my design, which has much in common, but tries not 
> to make certain errors. The problem is the content!

I would say the problem is not the content but the structure of the content. 
The structure needs the highest amount of thoughts. And simplifying things is a 
good goal to achieve it.

Then comes design which must present the structure in a consistent and 
attractive way. Then it is possible to present any content so that people can 
find what they are looking for.

Nikolaus