From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: [OT] Current website not very attractive Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:30:57 -0400 Message-ID: <3756.1344580257@alphaville> References: <3115.1344571324@alphaville> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36624) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzikU-0003AO-DI for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:31:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzikQ-0001Zc-LQ for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:31:06 -0400 Received: from g4t0015.houston.hp.com ([15.201.24.18]:27937) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SzikQ-0001ZR-FA for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Aug 2012 02:31:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message from Nick Dokos of "Fri, 10 Aug 2012 00:02:04 EDT." <3115.1344571324@alphaville> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Cc: Sankalp , Org Mode , Jude DaShiell , Marcelo de Moraes Serpa Nick Dokos wrote: > Sankalp wrote: > > > --f46d044401de1e3ad604c6de28a7 > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > > > I'm inclined to agree with Marcelo. > > -- > > Sankalp > > > > ******************************************************* > > If humans could mate with software, I'd have org-mode's > > babies. > > --- Chris League on Twitter. > > http://orgmode.org/worg/org-quotes.html > > ******************************************************* > > > > > > On 10 August 2012 04:44, Jude DaShiell wrote: > > > > > Good, that probably means it's one of the more accessible and usable web > > > sites on the internet. > > > > > > On Thu, 9 Aug 2012, Marcelo de Moraes Serpa wrote: > > > > > > > Hey list, > > > > > > > > Don't want to be negative, but doesn't anyone else also think the current > > > > design is kind of amateurish and not very attractive? I also did not like > > > > the screenshot used, I preferred the previous one, it showed more org > > > > capabilities, and the colors and indentation looked better. > > > > > > > > My two cents and food for thought, > > > > > > Talk is cheap: how would you improve it? And I don't mean generalities: build > a website as you think it should be and then invite us over to take a look. > And as Jude suggests, don't forget to keep accessibility/usability issues > in mind as you design. > > Nick > It has been pointed out to me that my comments might be taken as "overbearing". Not my intent, but I will take back the "talk is cheap" part (or repeat it to myself as the target this time) and apologize for it: I should have reread the mail before hitting send. But the larger point is still there: "I don't like it" is a legitimate response, but is not nearly as helpful as giving a list of reasons of *why* you don't like it. And providing something you *like* is even better. E.g. would the current design with the previous screen shot be OK? Or are there deeper problems? Nick