Subject: Re: Requirements for updated site

From: "Dave Page" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 08:24:38 -0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: 16 January 2004 05:47
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Dave Page; Alexey Borzov; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
> 
> Well, personally I wonder why you use such a small portion of 
> the browser window.  Those grey areas on both sides of the 
> content are just not used, which is a shame.

It's designed to fit nicely on an 800x600 display, however, it has been
mentioned a number of times that the one new design feature that the new
site will initially implement is variable sizing of the 'page':
http://wwwdevel2.postgresql.org

(which incidently seems to have lost the thin black border around the
outside of the 'paper')

> People seem to expect these kind of set-ups nowadays.  And 
> like you said, those three columns make your eyes wander too 
> much, just like on slashdot.org.

I disagree with that. I find that the columns either side (especially
being in a darker bg colour) frame and focus the eye onto the main
content.

Regards, Dave.

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 15:37:31 +0300

Hi!

> being in a darker bg colour) frame and focus the eye onto the main

You consider this a feature, I consider this a problem.

When *you* come to the website (or I do, for that matter) you already 
know its layout and look at the main content --- news.

Now, what happens when a *new* visitor comes to the website? Should 
*his* eyes be focused on main content? No, first thing he should 
understand is "what is this site about" and "what is it basic 
structure". The current layout does not help this at all.

The main attention anchor should usually be the logo. This is not so at 
postgresql.org: logo is located at the right of the page, while usually 
it is at the left (unless we think that most of the site's visitors read 
  right to left (in case you are unsure, we read left to right here in 
Russia)). It does not have enough contrast and is located between two 
*big* banners bearing the website's colors.

Then the logo must direct attention to the main navigation structure. 
The main navigation structure is bad, too: the letters are small (OK in 
IE, but *small* in Mozilla, both under Windows and Linux) and not 
contrast enough.

The navigation menus on the left and right do not fit into the screen in 
any resolution. What's worse, it is impossible to see even the headers 
of the ones at the bottom, i.e. 'gborg' and 'international'!

These were the issues I tried to address in my mock-up. And at least it 
allows me to get overview of the whole site without need to scroll @ 
1024x768 (this is the most common resolution now).

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:03:52 -0400 (AST)

> structure". The current layout does not help this at all.

At least new visitors to the current site don't leave cross-eyed ... I
give that a big check over what you've proposed ...

> IE, but *small* in Mozilla, both under Windows and Linux) and not

I run Mozilla under FreeBSD, and find the site perfectly readable as it is
...

> of the ones at the bottom, i.e. 'gborg' and 'international'!

Huh?  What resolution are you running?  I have a laptop at home that I
loaded it up to last night and got the 'gray borders' on either side ...

> 1024x768 (this is the most common resolution now).

I run higher resolution on my desktop then laptop, and laptop is at home,
but up/down scroll doesn't bother me, and on neither my laptop or desktop
do I have to scroll left/right ... in fact, on my desktop at 1600x1200,
the following sites all require me to still scroll up/down:

http://www.mozilla.org
	- menu on left, 'sub menu' across the top right
http://www.kde.org
	- menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right
http://www.freebsd.org
	- menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right
http://www.gimp.org
	- menu on left side
http://www.redhat.com
	- three frames down the middle, menu across the top
http://www.debian.org
	- menu on left side and across the top

in all 6 above cases, on a 1600x1200 resolution screen, using Mozilla 1.6b
with default fonts, I have to scroll up and down, so it seems pretty
common ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: [email-masked]           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:44:53 +0300

Hi!

> the following sites all require me to still scroll up/down:

Scrolling itself is not the problem. The problem is *what* you see 

> 	- menu on left, 'sub menu' across the top right

Logo stands out, top-right main menu has a color different from 
everything else, search box is available. Left column that needs 
scrolling contains not navigation, but "features" and "news"

> 	- menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right

Logo stands out, the most important menu items fit into the screen in 
1024x768, mirror selection and search boxes are available.

> 	- menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right

Wow. If it was done in postgresql.org colors, your eyes will be crossed 
even more. Still, most important items are above the "fold", mirror 
selection box is available, search box is present, but wa-a-ay down.

> 	- menu on left side

Topmost news item: "WWW.GIMP.ORG will soon get a facelift! The current 
design of this site was created more than five years ago. It looked good 
at that time, but both the web and the GIMP have evolved since then."

> 	- three frames down the middle, menu across the top

This is a company site, not a project, bear this in mind. Still: logo, 
highly contrast main menu, search box. All the most important features 
are above the "fold" in the main area.

> 	- menu on left side and across the top

Logo, highly contrast main menu, mirror selection and search boxes, most 
important menu items are available at the top...

Two points:
1) kde, freebsd and debian are *bigger* than postgresql, so their 
websites *may* have bigger navigation structures. Now, may I point you to:
http://www.mysql.com/
http://firebird.sf.net/
http://www.sapdb.org/
?..

2) In the current website you see the following at the top
   a) What is... (leading to a page about PGDG)
   b) Licence
   c) Case studies
   d) Contact the webmasters
   e) Report a bug

Now, are these the most common questions/tasks users come to the site for?

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 11:55:01 -0400 (AST)

> websites *may* have bigger navigation structures. Now, may I point you to:

Actually, they have a nice site ... I like the menu items up in the top
right like that, up and out of the way ...

>    d) Contact the webmasters

Odd, at the top on my browser, I see:

a) Download
b) Mirrors
c) Lists
d) Users
e) Developers
f) Docs
g) Search

Are you sure you are looking at the same site as the rest of us? *scratch
head*

Now, I find the size of the fonts to be large enough, but maybe if there
was some way of 'highlighting' them so they stood out from the page a bit
more?

----

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:01:37 +0300

Hi!

> Are you sure you are looking at the same site as the rest of us? *scratch

Look a bit down. Yes, I'm speaking of these ugly blue columns on the 
both sides that for some strange reason are liked so much in here.

> was some way of 'highlighting' them so they stood out from the page a bit

Like, move to a saner color palette from the current week-old-corpse one? ;]

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:24:36 -0400 (AST)

> both sides that for some strange reason are liked so much in here.

Oh, you seemed to indicate that the stuff important to the users visiting
the site were hidden away ...

Oh, the "ugly blue columns that you are the only one that doesn't like"?
Do you have a proposal that would be acceptable to everyone else on how to
improve things?  And please don't re-send the original URL that my 2 year
old could have done a better job of with her crayons ... I'm still getting
over my headache from seeing it the last time ...

> Like, move to a saner color palette from the current week-old-corpse one? ;]

Look forward to seeing what you have in mind ...

BTW, while you are pounding on something that nobody else here seems to
agree about, the rest of us are working on those issues that have been
highlighted as 'needing to do' before we even visit redesigning the site
... if you want to be helpful, you might want to re-focus your energies on
what has a chance of being done now, instead of beating a dead horse ...

There are alot of ppl on this list, all of whom have opinions ... some ppl
on this list have been working *with* the rest for several years now ...
each has their own opinions on things, but each works with the rest for
the overall good ... so far, all your threads have amounted to "my way is
right, your way is wrong, let's change to my way" ...

A site re-design will *not* happen for at least another 6 months, as there
are higher priority things in the works ... now, if you would like to
re-focus your efforts on that in a non-antogonistic way, maybe we can get
those issues resolved and can then focus on a site re-design?  Or doesn't
the 'backend stuff' interest you?

----

---

From: Devrim GUNDUZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 18:41:48 +0200 (EET)

Hi,

> Like, move to a saner color palette from the current week-old-corpse one? ;]

We have more important things to do. Instead of a new design, I believe 
that we must improve the content of the site and also we must improve and 
update developer site. I think developer.postgresql.org is more important 
than www site, for an open-source products.

Regards,
- -- 
Devrim GUNDUZ	       
[email-masked]				[email-masked] 
			http://www.TDMSoft.com
			http://www.gunduz.org

---

From: Alexey Borzov <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 19:45:53 +0300

Hi!

> Look forward to seeing what you have in mind ...

I am not a designer. And looking at the archives there were designers 
who wanted to contribute their work, but were turned down...

> the 'backend stuff' interest you?

Marc, with all due respect. I already proposed some backend changes and 
am willing to start working on them myself. Right now I am waiting for 
someone to post the data needed to setup a local copy of the server (see 
topic 'database dump needed, after all', it is not in the archives yet).

If you can be that 'someone' (I hope *you* have enough access rights?) 
then please do so, I'll start hacking on the backend and will not waste 
the subscribers' time until I have something to show them. Thanks in 
advance.

---

From: "Marc G. Fournier" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 12:50:56 -0400 (AST)

> the subscribers' time until I have something to show them. Thanks in

Actually, Dave is just finishing that up now for you ... just confirmed
with him that it wasn't something else he was dumping, so it should be
available momentarily ...

----