Hi! On Sat, 19 May 2001 09:09:55 +0200 Raphael Quinet <quinet@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Well, this looks interesting but I do not know if such a design is > appropriate for a Gimp site. Your design is modern/futuristic, but > these characteristics are not directly related to image editing, Perhaps I should have mentioned that this design is not a design yet (do you really think I would allow something ugly like that to become gimp.org? :-)). I just like some frame for content and it's sure the next design won't be plain text either. > Anyway, I am not sure that a completely new design for the Gimp site > is necessary. It would be nice, but upating the presentation is IMHO > much less urgent than updating the contents. There are many broken It is. The blue bar at the left is the only thing I like about the current design but it's tied to the old navigation and I'm not sure if it would be good to reuse. Everything else are clumsy tables which make an old-fashioned impression. I'm not aiming at a Pixecore type design but have a look at this: http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/main.html It's simple, clean navigation, not overbloated and shows some little gimmicks that can be done (see the circles). We don't need (want) to copy Adobe, but the design should be as functional as theirs. Correct me if I missed a point here. > * The new layout should not break the existing URLs. Many people have > bookmarked some pages on www.gimp.org, and many web sites have > direct links to the download pages, to the documentation or to the > mailing lists page. So even if the navigation system is > redesigned, > there should still be something available from the same URLs as > today. If a user requests a page not available on the server, he / she gets redirected to "news", "404", "we have changed" or whatever from where he / she can navigate to the required page and realizes that it's time to update bookmarks. Backward-compatibility isn't cool. :-) Also, a new navigation structure would really force a new file naming and all. > Maybe it could be interesting to have a look at the web sites of the > companies selling similar products... You will see that all of them > are using simple layouts: they do not try to impress people with nice > HTML tricks; instead they simply list the features of their products > and provide some simple documentation. I fully agree at this point. Only that Gimp isn't a commercial product and needs some more comprehensive online documentation, external links, feedback etc.. The Paint Shop Pro Tour looks nice but it only shows what you can do and not how you can do it. -- --=[ t0mcat@xxxxxx ]=-- --=[ http://www.technoid.f2s.com ]=--
