Re: *.gnome.org common header

["Olav Vitters" <ovitters gmail com>]

On 4/4/06, Steve Judd <sjudd accesstoledo com> wrote:
> > The links are on the exact place where I'd want the 'new bug',
> > 'search', etc links. I can understand this being useful on a website,
> > but I see Bugzilla as different. It is an application with a
> > webinterface. Switching from Bugzilla to another GNOME site is not
> > something I do often (well.. maybe a planet GNOME links ;). I can
> > understand a random person (user) being redirected to a random bug
> > might like such links, but I think those are in the minority. It is
> > far more useful to add links about the product (homepage, specific
> > support site, latest releases, etc).
> >
> I happen to be a person who likes to jump around a site. When I go to
> w.g.o., I usually want to do several things and using bugzilla may be
> only one of them. I also tend to get distracted easily. I click my way
> from here to there and pretty soon I'm a long way from where I started.
> I want some way to show I'm still in the same site or if I've gone off
> the site. I also want an easy way back (lazy :-) ).

That is what the Back button is for. When you go from some page deep
within www.gnome.org, the nav bar will only redirect you to another
general page. It will not redirect you back, they are only general
links.

The target should be to firstly include relevant links to the page you
are currently seeing. That might be the frontpage of b.g.o, but can
also be a document deep within b.g.o. The header should still be
consistent across sites (placement of the general links), so my
conclusion is that the header should be non-obvious.

> FWIW, I think of bugzilla as an integral part of w.g.o. and find it a
> bit disconcerting that there isn't an easy, obvious way to get back to
> w.g.o. after visiting bugzilla. It makes me have to think and thinking
> makes my head hurt!

I do agree we need a link to w.g.o and the layout should indicate it
is a Gnome site. This is slightly difficult with b.g.o as it is a
customized Bugzilla (e.g. common header is easy, totally changing the
layout of the entire site might be difficult).

[..]
> I re-worked the bugzilla page with the common header and am including it
> as an attachment. It should go right into the wgo directory from my last
> post. You'll need to copy the quicksearch and localconfig script files
> to wgo/ directory also. Put gnomebug02.html into wgo/, bug-buddy.png
> (yes - I 'borrowed' another image) into wgo/images/ and bugzilla.css
> into wgo/styles/ and take a look at it.

About the bug image: I'm still amazed nobody provided another bug
image or complained about the color I used for quoted text. Probably
have to ask for something better.

> If I understand your objections to a common header, I would say that it
> is intrusive into the bugzilla page. As I look at it, it doesn't really
> intrude much but does provide the tie-in with w.g.o. and solves my
> problems I mentioned above.

Your mockups show two top bars. I want just one. I want a top bar /
header that makes it clear that 'this is Gnome Bugzilla'. I want a
small non-intrusive header, not two. When a user would click on the
header by accident, it should be a Bugzilla link (new bug).

This is what I like about the GUADEC gray part. I do not like the
entire GUADEC image below it. I'd rather include the word 'Bugzilla'
somewhere (inside the bar). The GUADEC bar still has a problem when
the browser is small (links overlap with the Gnome logo) + the gray
might be too dull when there is only text beneath it. Oh, and we do
not offer downloads.

A common header is difficult as different sites probably have
different opinions and needs. Some might need/like two bars or a large
extended one (like I see guadec). I'd rather see one. Also see
http://www.gnome.org/projects/nautilus / planet gnome / etc.

> I'm interested to know what you think about it.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Steve
>
> p.s. I didn't test it to see if everything works. I quite likely broke
> some things.
>
> p.p.s. The page does validate as xhtml 1.0 and the stylesheet as css 2.

That page might, but I'm not sure about the rest of Bugzilla. I do not
care if something fully validates, as long as a site tries to be
valid.