Re: Re: Sourceforge community award

[Peter Frings <peter.frings@agfa.com>]

On 12 Jun 2009, at 05:58, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>
> On Jun 12, 2009, at 12:59 AM, Memnon Anon wrote:
>
>> Leo <sdl.web@gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>> On 2009-06-11 21:49 +0100, Carsten Dominik wrote:
>>>> I am attaching the picture to this email, you can also retrieve it
>>>> from
>>>>
>>>> http://orgmode.org/Org-mode-scc.png
>>>
>>> That screen shot looks very beautiful. There's one minor glitch. The
>>> font is non anti-alias.
>>
>> Pictures often give people their first impression of a software, as
>> stupid as it is. What do you all think of the used colors?
>
> I do to some extend agree with you.  The buffer picture does
> look very colored and a bit unrealistic.  A real buffer would
> look less colored because the distribution between text and
> functional elements would be different.  These lines are so short
> to make them readable at all in a screenshot.

Will readable lines make the case? It all boils down to the question  
you pose: "what's its function?".

> I actually do use these colors currently and find them quite
> workable.

I think there's a difference between what's workable and what's  
`attractive at first sight'. These days everything must be "web20",  
soft, polished, nice graphics, ...  Too attract people, it must not be  
workable, but pretty. I agree with the poster about the "90s look".

If the function of the screenshot/logo is to attract people and make  
them click through, it must be appealing AND pick their interest. The  
one screenshot on worg with the R plots has some of those qualities,  
but I think it's too dark and contains too much info (window is too  
big for a scaled-down screenshot).

The alternative --only the logo-- is not bad, but I would add a  
slogan, such as "Your life in plain text"; short and bold. The logo by  
itself is not well-known and might not invoke this "Hey, what would  
that be? Let me see!" reaction.

Hmmm, are there any marketeers on this list?

Cheers,
Peter.