On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 21:41:23 +0100, Jaroslaw Staniek <stan...@kde.org>
wrote:
On 22 December 2011 15:13, Adam C. <nos...@xibo.at> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 14:04:28 +0100, Jaroslaw Staniek <stan...@kde.org>
wrote:
On 22 December 2011 12:51, Adam C. <nos...@xibo.at> wrote:
to me the design looks a little bit like hastily cobbled together. the
elements are not aligned, there is no contrast and the different font
types
are fighting each other.
Thanks for the notes.
Please help to improve the alignment by pointing what exactly can be
aligned better.
If you see 2 or 3 pixels misalignment please read the entire email -
this is a mockup that even uses uselicensed graphics, btw.
i've read the mail, thanks for the hint, but it's not just a few pixels.
here i tried to display, what i mean:
http://wstaw.org/m/2011/12/22/not_aligned.png
note that it's not only misalignment, but also the lack of contrast.
this is a svn mockup - your points help me to improve it
Please propose proper place for the 'what is calligra?' item - it
should stay exposed though.
BTW - yes, installation is important, it is not about downloading an
exe file - it's a link to page like
http://www.calligra.org/get-calligra/ which explains all deployment
methods but in better way (that page is a curiosity for me because of
the geeky links within the sentences).
is it more important than the 'what is calligra?'
i showed you already a proposal for it, (see my mockup) in the menu at the
top (unlike in my mockup, the text should be all the same font).
ah, ok. without body i only count 5 fonts. imo a different font colour,
style, size and boldness is also a different font (to some extend).
well,
ok. it's rather like 'big differneces are ok, but small not'.
http://wstaw.org/m/2011/12/22/fonts.png
This is a mockup, if you spot differences this is because there's no
CSS used, just svg texts, consider all this fixed; and one thing:
either you have align at the cost of font sizes or you have the same
font sizes and misalignment.
Single font was used for the top area and two weights.
i'm not against 3 navigation levels, but for me the mockup looks a
little
bit messy (no offence). the article is quite old btw (2003) and i guess,
there are other articles, which say, that less navigation is better.
Yes but this may be possible by removing content or having separate
sites. Translates to more clicks and surprises.
not necessarily surprises, but imo we should hide unimportant information.
of course also i am not a designer, but we had some lessons in
university
on
this topic, so i tried to quickly stick something together.
http://wstaw.org/m/2011/12/22/calligrahp__.png
nice too, but I also see misalignment here and these 3 levels of
navigation...
can you point?
Screenshots on the banner are randomly placed.
Even more important these are all of various sizes (creative chaos?)
so because there are many of them they are small and thus there's just
a lot of black and white noise instead of readable text. I always
indeed. there should be something more catchy. we have seen some good
examples on this thread.
wonder why to publish screenshots this way instead of simplify the
screenshots using this technique
(http://kexi-project.org/screenshots.html) that I practice already
over 10 years - or use any other equivalent technique.
Just using symbols (as in my desktop/tablet/... buttons) if symbols
are enough, do not clutter. This is like in marketing - using symbolic
sentences like 'free' instead of geeky open source/libre one is able
to deliver the message to the other audiences.
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
_______________________________________________
calligra-devel mailing list
calligra-devel@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
