Hey guys,

Didn't mean to start any kind of flame.

@Nick: I'm not a designer, more of a hybrid coder with some design foundations, but I'm definitely willing to help. I don't like the current layout because of it's overuse of shadows and its "web1"-style layout. Also, typography could use some improvement, and we could also use a better screenshot, to give a better first impression. 

- Marcelo.

On Fri, Aug 10, 2012 at 1:30 AM, Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:
Nick Dokos <nicholas.dokos@hp.com> wrote:

> Sankalp <sankalpkhare@gmail.com> 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 <jdashiel@shellworld.net> 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