Re: design update
Dave Malcolm <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.gnome.office.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <1076428021.24116.1814.camel@shirehorse1> |
On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 15:24, Charles Goodwin wrote: > On Tue, 2004-02-10 at 14:55, Jody Goldberg wrote: > > Could both of you post links to your proposals and some quick point > > form notes of why you think it rocks. I'll bounce them off some web > > people as judges and post the result. > > My design: http://www.charlietech.com/goffice > > It rocks because: > > o It's standards compliant (although this goes without saying) > and cross-browser compatable looking good in all of them Actually it's not :-) I tried clicking on the W3C XHTML1.1 validator link and it complains about a few things... Though they'll be easy to fix if the design is adopted. (Sorry to be pedantic. I like the design BTW) > > o It scales beautifully between low (640x480) and high (1280x1024 > and probably higher) resolutions (note the way the screenshots > move accordingly!) > > o It's really clean with an emphasis making important parts > catch the eye, getting the information quickly to the mind > of the viewer > > o It's graphically independent - just icons and a header which > are simple to change and are so small that the effect on load > time is barely noticable if at all > > o It's very professional looking; we are aiming at a professional > market in general (and geeks appreciate nice designs anyway) > > o It's a tidy design, where the content is well separated from > the layout so it's easy to update (the front page being a minor > exception although nothing complicated) - the CSS does the work > > o When you look at it you think positive thoughts... > warm thoughts... clear thoughts... you breathe deeply... > relax... (Oh ok then I'll stop there!) > > I'm sure I could think of more but I'd be really scraping the barrel and > the bottom line is that it's what _you_ think that matters and not my > incredibly biased opinion. (Although I do my best to remain objective > on the list!) > > I personally think it rocks, that it is constructed with a bit more > usability acumen than Ryan's design and hence more suited for our target > demographic. But, again, that is my (arguably unqualifed) opinion and > not the one that counts. > > Vote for Charlie for low taxes and extra welfare! > > > Sound reasonable ? > > It must do since I just replied. ;)