Re: *.gnome.org common header

[Quim Gil <qgil desdeamericaconamor org>]

[Adding at the end Jakub's feedback since apparently his message hasn't
hit the list (yet)]

On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 11:05 +0000, Joachim Noreiko wrote:

> * most subsites won't have their own logo, so
> presumably the GUADEC logo will be replaced with the
> standard gnome foot. Will that mean two gnome logos in
> the header?

If in GNOME an applet deserves an own icon, why a subsite can't deserve
an own logo.  ;) 

But well, in the current situation those subsites without logo are
generally the ones really tight to GNOME core (i.e. Download). Perhaps a
solution to these would be to have the one and only GNOME logo expanded,
more or less as it is now gnome.org, plus a text header. 

This is more or less what we are already doing in subsites like
http://foundation.gnome.org/ . The difference would be that the subsite
navigation would have a horizontal bar like http://beta.guadec.org
instead of the current right column block.

This solution would be as applicable to "light" subsites without own
logo as "heavy" subsites like GUADEC's, http://art.gnome.org/,
http://planet.gnome.org/ and most projects i.e.
http://www.gnome.org/projects/epiphany/ or
http://www.gnome.org/projects/evolution/ 


> * a bit of the planet graphic is visible beneath the
> lower bar, where it blends in with the thick pale blue
> line. This is a nice idea, but it sort of makes me
> think my browser is broken and is displaying the lower
> link bar 10px too high.

Perhaps you think this because you're nearer to a geek than to a normal
GNOME user. Be poetic, love the aesthetics!  ;)  More seriously, we did
discuss this and we ended up thinking it was a nice idea, like you say,
so why not keep it.

I like this overlapping concept, to me looks like "integrating parts",
which I think is an essential GNOME component (now you see I'm nearer to
a marketing lingo-bingo guy than to a normal GNOME user anyway). :)


> * overall it's quite tall. Things like the grey bar at
> the very top and the pale blue bar could maybe
> removed?

I also find it tall and I don't think we should have a taller header
than i.e. Mozilla, Yahoo!, Amazon or CNN. However, I don't think we get
to the right height by taking elements out but by shrinking a but the
current ones:

- With such small but readable font in the nav bars, it is possible to
have shorter tabs.

- You may get the same feeling of "wide planet" with less planet, also
the same feeling of cleanness with less white.

- Once you have changed this, you see that you can also cut a couple of
pixels more from the pale blue strip can also be safely removed.

This would give a more compact feeling to the header, I think. This will
also require the subsite logo more integrated, now it's like floating
without landing.


> * I can't figure out why the lower link bar has a
> right margin. then again, I can't think of a reason
> why it shouldn't, either.

I like it. Gives a sense of proximity (the folder in front of you). The
top bar without margin looks like behind, which is good.


> * one thing Shaun's recent mockup has that this
> doesn't is the strong sense that you're somewhere on
> GNOME space. The white on black gnome foot & text is a
> clear marker that would carry through all sites. Even
> if we add the gnome foot to the top bar, the fact that
> it's right-aligned will make it less visible.

I agree. There is something to learn and implement from Shaun's GNOME
bar.

And I've added your suggestions at
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=335374 in order to keep track.
Feel free to continue/copy there.

But... tavon, what do you think?


On Wed, 2006-03-22 at 14:21 +0100, Jakub Steiner wrote: 
> On Thu, 2006-03-16 at 11:35 +0100, Quim Gil wrote:
> > Please have a look at the new GUADEC theme: http://beta.guadec.org
> 
> Hi.
> 
> Looks fab! I suggest you add `body {background-color: #fff;}` as people
> with dark widget theme (non-white for base[NORMAL] for gtk browsers)
> will get a sub-optimal result. Alternatively you could use RGBA PNGs
> instead of flattening images to white, but that has size implications.

-- 
Quim Gil /// http://desdeamericaconamor.org | http://guadec.org