X-Original-To: pgsql-www-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 092F13A202A for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:14:28 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 72933-08 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:14:26 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hub.org (hub.org [200.46.204.220]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5A2E43A47A7 for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:14:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF34912A7DA for ; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:14:24 -0400 (AST) Received: from hub.org ([200.46.204.220]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 27359-04; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:14:17 +0000 (GMT) Received: from ganymede.hub.org (blk-222-46-91.eastlink.ca [24.222.46.91]) by hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D95012A73B; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:14:17 -0400 (AST) Received: by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 7FB8D3987A; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:14:16 -0400 (AST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ganymede.hub.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70D7138E39; Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:14:16 -0400 (AST) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:14:16 -0400 (AST) From: "Marc G. Fournier" X-X-Sender: scrappy@ganymede.hub.org To: "Gavin M. Roy" Cc: Dave Page , Robert Treat , Omar Kilani , pgsql-www@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design In-Reply-To: <4194E9FC.2050603@ehpg.net> Message-ID: <20041112131312.J3792@ganymede.hub.org> References: <4194E9FC.2050603@ehpg.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 tagged_above=0.0 required=5.0 tests= X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200411/152 X-Sequence-Number: 5883 On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > Since this design is "drop-in" ready requiring only minor changes, perhaps we > should resurrect the idea of a vote (maybe on Advocacy). Any thoughts on > that? Once change to the new design has to be made before it can be drop'd in, and the banner has to be added to the right menu like it is on the new design ... > > Gavin > > Dave Page wrote: > >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org >>> [mailto:pgsql-www-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of Robert Treat >>> Sent: 12 November 2004 15:08 >>> To: Dave Page >>> Cc: Omar Kilani; pgsql-www@postgresql.org >>> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design >>> >>> please note I am dropping -advocacy from this discussion since I need some >>> focus on www work >>> >> >> Good call. >> >> >>> One problem I have with Lukasz design is that some of the subsection >>> really scream out for second level navigation. >>> In Lukasz design, we end up re-propogating the right nav bar on every page >>> which I think is bad because it uses a lot of screen real estate while >>> adding little/no substance to the secondary pages. For example, do we >>> really need a link to external community sites on every page? >>> In something like the "Overview" section, I would like to add in content >>> like case studies, gui tools, advantages, and other sections from advocacy >>> and techdocs websites, but this mean putting all of these subsections on >>> the main "overview" page, creating a long scrolling lists that have to be >>> gone through to find content. I think it is easier for people to scroll >>> short lists of subcategories in a left hand nav like in the "About" >>> section of the tinysofa design. >>> These underlying structural issues need to be addressed regardless of what >>> design we use. >> >> Yes, agreed. >> >> >>>> 2) What happens if xyz web design comes and offers us another great >>>> design next week. Do we start again? Where/when do we draw >>> the line? >>>> If I'm honest, based on our agreement to use Lukasz' design I think that >>>> line should be drawn already. >>>> >>>> >>> If we agree that there are some underlying structural issues, then either >>> that needs to be addressed in the current design, or we need to swap. I >>> understand that we don't want to just toss Lukasz' work out the window, >>> but if we were developing an application and we found flaws in some piece >>> of it, and someone else coded up an alternative implementation, I don't >>> think we would discount the new idea simply on the grounds that we already >>> have an existing implementation. >> >> Hmm, I don't think it's quite the same as a code issue though, as it's a >> lot more subjective. I see what you mean though. >> >> >>> (In fairness, the new design also has some structural issues, like fixed >>> width, that would also have to be addressed before we could use it) >> >> Also agreed. >> I should add that I do actually quite like this design, at least as much >> as Lukasz'. >> Regards, Dave >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command >> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo@postgresql.org) >> > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664