Re: I'm back.

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Joakim Ziegler">

> Total number of hits yesterday: 1'612'859
> 
> Total number of hits from browsers known to handle CSS1/CSS2 in a sane
> way: 
> 
> Mozilla/5: 845'834
> MSIE 5.0:  167'264 (this is pushing the boundary of "sane CSS", but it's
> close enough)
> MSIE 5.5:  149'064
> MSIE 6:    252'491

Wow, that's really cool. It's remarkably different to the situation a while
ago, when we had similar results but with IE in the (very front-running)
lead.

> I think it's a mistake to assume that this has to look exactly the same as
> the CSS version, it'll only serve to cripple both versions.

I *strongly* agree, and have been saying this for aaaages now. :) I also see
it as a positive for maintenance, because instead of having to deal with
many little breakages and limitations trying to keep all of the browsers
sane (even when you're just dealing with the CSS), you can deal with what's
best for the browser head on.

> So in view of all this, I think it would be wise to use browser detection
> to choose between two layouts, one that uses CSS1/2, and is tested on IE5
> and up (with a focus on IE 5.5 and up), and Mozilla, and one that's
> tables-based and simpler, and works in HTML 3.2 browsers.

Currently, with Steve's HTML/CSS combo, we can just switch CSS based on the
browser, which is attractive to me. I'm trying as hard as possible to aim
for the ability to serve static html, and very little dynamic stuff.

Having to serve out different HTML means that *every* page has to be
dynamic. But that's okay, and if it solves the design issues, I'm happy to
work with it (it does make some server-side stuff simpler anyway).

What you've suggested will ring in Steve's ears with pain, because I've been
trying to convince him to do this for a long time. I think it's the best
solution, because it means we only have to generate 2 * 'the number of
language translations' pages.

[ The build system goes through these steps:

  1) check out current cvs

  2) build to a temporary directory

    a) build HTML 3.2 documents in each translation

    b) build CSS-happy documents in each translation

  3) move old root directory out of the way

  4) move new build directory to root location

  5) delete the old directory

That way, we won't have the same situation with old junk files that we have
now. ]

> They've been prettified a bit since then, though, I like the subtle
> footstep background and the highlighting, although I'm less certain about
> the use of icons in the sidebar. They're cute, but they don't seem to add
> much value, and the folder/document metaphor is pretty broken for a
> website, because a category usually has both a top-level index page, and
> subpages, unlike a folder, which doesn't have any information itself, just
> sub-contents. Also, the implication that you're actually *writing* to the
> page that's currently active is pretty broken.

That sidebar will not be a tree in the final version - it just looks perky
on Steve's pages at the moment. ;) This makes of the things you've mentioned
in this paragraph, and the ones I've snipped, less relevant.

> The mouseover highlighting of the GNOME logo seems unnecessary. It's
> probably the biggest image on the page, and having two versions of it
> seems like a waste. Also, "click on the logo in the top-left corner to go
> to the front page" is such a common navigation device that I don't think
> it needs explanation beyond the standard hand cursor.

Aye. Very much agree.

> "Welcome!" in the top nav bar is a little weird. I assume it goes to the
> front page? If so, it should probably be called "Front Page" or "Main
> Page", although we might consider dropping it completely, given the common
> use of the logo as a front page link, as discussed above.  Dropping it
> will help with page width considerations.

I'm not sure the sidebar and heading bar are being described will in Steve's
mockups - I don't really think they'd be used for quite the same things.
More suggestions on this, and information architecture (I really have to
send my current summary of this to the list) would be greatly appreciated.

> It's tempting to think about some changes in the look itself.

Yes! :)

> (At this point, as many times before, I wish GNOME had a logo that was
> more graphic design-oriented, and not so photorealistic and shaded. But
> well.)

I've been talking to tigert about this - not sure how much time he's going
to have before 2.0 to work on it though.

> There's probably more stuff too, but I want to get some feedback on my
> thoughts. As mentioned above, I'm willing and ready to put work into this,
> to the point of implementing it all myself if everyone things these are
> good ideas, but decide they don't want to do any work. :)

I think the best spots to start banging on are IA and design issues,
especially the correlation of the two. That would really help.

Thanks,

- Jeff

-- 
    "It's not sufficient to 'use simple words to explain things'. Things    
      must actually *be* simple, which is much harder." - Martin Pool