From: TEC <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Bastien <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: TEC: update the new website ML page?
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 23:37:09 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <firstname.lastname@example.org> (raw)
Bastien <email@example.com> writes:
> FWIW, I just slightly updated this page with this paragraph:
> If you are not a subscriber to the list, you can still send an email
> to firstname.lastname@example.org, we will add you to the whitelist of people
> who can reach the list.
>> As a second request, can we get a link to Worg on the top level bar?
> I'd rather let Timothy decide on this, as he has the whole picture.
Thanks Bastien :)
Hi Russel, while I appreciate the significance of Worg, I currently
don't feel that adding it to the header improves the site.
There are two concerns I have on this.
1. I'm very wary of "header creep", see https://0x0.st/iFS7.png for a
mock up of an "extreme" example.
IMO the current state is "bulging", with 4-6 items as the ideal.
Adding Worg would take us to 8. In addition to the increased number
of visual elements, it also lessens the individual significance of
the per-existing items. If a "features" item has 3 other items, it is
much more emphasised than when it has 7 other items.
This is just a long winded way of me expressing the view that adding
to the header affects the perception of the rest of the header, and
thus the overall effect may be negative, as I suspect it would be in
2. Worg is usually linked to in very specific instances, e.g.
"(scientific) papers [about Org]", "The FAQ", "Using Org as a
It is also often linked, 11 times on the index page for instance.
This makes me suspect that there is not sufficient benefit in adding
it to the header.
I could well be missing something obvious, but those are my current
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-12-14 15:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-11-16 10:45 TEC: update the new website ML page? Russell Adams
2020-11-16 17:10 ` Tom Gillespie
2020-12-14 6:46 ` Bastien
2020-12-14 15:37 ` TEC [this message]
2020-12-14 16:09 ` Eric S Fraga
2020-12-14 16:10 ` TEC
2020-12-14 16:27 ` Russell Adams
2020-12-14 16:29 ` TEC
2020-12-14 18:14 ` Russell Adams
2020-12-14 18:20 ` TEC
2020-12-14 19:45 ` Russell Adams
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
List information: https://www.orgmode.org/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).