[nycbug-talk] www.nycbug.org homepage

Tue Oct 1 02:15:13 EDT 2013

On Sep 30, 2013, at 10:57 PM, George Rosamond wrote:

> Brian Callahan:
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 30 Sep 2013, George Rosamond wrote:
>> 
>>> Scott Robbins:
>>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 02:16:47PM -0400, Mark Saad wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 1:27 PM, Patrick McEvoy
>>>>> <mcevoy.pat at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On 9/30/13 12:54 PM, Okan Demirmen wrote:
>>>>>>> For those who think the homepage might need a different look/feel,
>>>>>>> please consider voicing your opinion(s) on the following:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1) http://www.nycbug.org/?action=event&do=llist
>>>>>>> 2) http://www.nycbug.org/?action=event&do=slist
>>>>>>> 3) http://www.nycbug.org/?action=event&do=ylist
>>>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I like 2.  It has the first current topic written out, rather than
>>>> making
>>>> the user click on the link, and then has links to all the other
>>>> things.  A
>>>> little more space between the announcement of Boris' talk and and the
>>>> link
>>>> to Moe Nassar's might or might not be nice too.  (Note that I have no
>>>> graphics knowledge, but that's my impression.)

I agree with the spacing suggestions, setting a 2% margin on the
hr's that surround the meeting blurb, or perhaps wrapping that blurb
in a div and setting a margin on that would give a nice amount of
breathing room around the meeting summary.

>>> 
>>> Well Scott, you have shown you have no graphics knowledge, since you
>>> agreed with a lot of other people who also have none either ;)
>>> 
>> 
>> Way to throw all of us under the bus there ;-)
> 
> We have hundreds of people on this list.  Maybe six of them know that
> white and off-white are different colors, and I don't mean in hex.  Our
> original logo was done by someone in NYPHP a long time ago.

Hey, I lack a comp-sci degree, so I'll share that a personal
pet-peeve of mine is grey text.  Maybe I have too many crappy lcd
panels, but I find it hard to read, especially on a tiny phone
screen.

> On the other hand, it's nice how our "functionalism" all comes to the
> same opinion.

I've involved myself in design stuff lately where I'm way out of my
league, and I just sit back and watch But the fact that the nycbug
site has a layout that's easy to navigate and properly categorizes
things is great.  I've had to work on sites where for various
idiotic reasons important sections are buried three menus deep and
if the client is lucky, they eventually take user complaints to
heart and we put things back as we originally envisioned while
suppressing the "told ya so" reflex.  Be thankful you've got the
site mapped out in a logical fashion; it's nice to have that off the
table so you can focus on the design.

> And if we didn't have an Ike, we'd have to create him.  He's one of the
> few who grasps (or imagines?) the interconnection of engineering and art :)
> 
>> 
>>> I agree on space between 'next' and upcoming events too.
>>> 
>>> Someone doing the tallying here?
>>> 
>> 
>> Option 2 is far and away in the lead.
> 
> Cool.
> 
> Other comments on 2, *if* that's the majority?

I might be in the minority, I like #2, BUT with the yearly breakdown
shown in #3.  Not so much because I feel like we need a breakdown by
year, but it breaks up the wall of text, making it much more
readable.

>> 
>>> Also, Okan dropped in the new logo, which there was pretty strong
>>> consensus for a few meetings ago.
>>> 
>> 
>> Just noticed that. Nice new logo!
> 
> Agree.  Does the rest of the logo (New York City... bridge for learning)
> match the fonts?

It's hard to tell really, it looks like there's either no
anti-aliasing on that section or very light anti-aliasing, which
makes it hard to tell if the font matches the large fonts that make
up the logo (those are anti-aliased).  This is subjective though -
the fonts that make up the logo and the blurb next to it are all in
an image (pre-rendered, if you will), so that looks the same to all
visitors, but the rest of the text on the page is rendered by the
visitor's browser.  So me sitting here looking at it on a Mac with
super-smoothed text on the page - I'm going to see a big difference
between the body text and the logo blurb text, but someone viewing
on Windows with ClearType turned off might see the body text looking
quite similar to the blurb text.

> Seems like too many fonts going on with page.. .that, I do remember from
> my pre-press days, is a no-no.

The html of the page is all one font (Verdana, with a fallback to
Arial and then Helvetica), but in different sizes and stylings, and
I don't really see that as jumbled or mismatched at all - bold is
used for titles and headings, italics for subsection headers, all in
all cohesive.  Being presumptuous here, I'd say what's catching your
eye and giving you a gut feeling of something being "off" is the
contrast in fonts between the logo/header and the rest of the body
text.

C and his $0.0145

> 
> g
> 
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at lists.nycbug.org
> http://lists.nycbug.org/mailman/listinfo/talk