[nycbug-talk] www.nycbug.org homepage

Charles Sprickman spork at bway.net
Tue Oct 1 02:44:31 EDT 2013

On Oct 1, 2013, at 2:15 AM, Charles Sprickman wrote:

> 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

Let me round that up to $0.02.

Here's the page as it is now as I see it:

http://i.imgur.com/CuQrOdV.png  (note the "*BSD" all-caps header especially)

Then if I clobber half the logo and replace the text blurb with (hackish) html:



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

More information about the talk mailing list