Bill Baxter wrote:
> I think the (newly redone) Python site is very professional looking:
> www.python.org
> 
> Ruby's site looks good too:
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
> 
> PHP is ok, but a little cluttered looking:
> http://www.php.net/
> 
> Nemerle is a wiki, but it looks pretty nice:
> http://nemerle.org/Main_Page

All those sites look nice, but the php is way too cluttered indeed and Ruby's, while nice looking, is not 'free-flowing'. This is like the zen of css, all very nice and such but not even making use of this basic html capability. imho, fixing your site to 800x600 is not the way to go.

> That said I like the curent D site.  A *touch* of color (preferably not more red) wouldn't hurt in softening the predominantly gray look.  But overall I think it looks fairly professional, except for MS-Paint style images here and there.
> 
> --bb

I agree. A good looking site should be coupled with good and easy to find content. The current D site has a lot of easy to find content, which is most important. Note how much info there is on every page without looking all cluttered and noisy like the php site, those make me want to leave ASAP.

Tom wrote:
> == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound@digitalmars.com)'s article
>> Do you have a url of a programming site that looks good? (I mean, it's
>> easier to talk about if given examples of "lights and mirrors" to compare.)
> 
> Obviously I've exaggerated a little :) about all the "lights and mirrors" stuff. I
> wasn't literally talking of course, was just saying.
> 
> But well, Bill gave us a nice example of (IMO) a nice looking web page:
> 
> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/

To be frank, I don't like that page, I think the graphic designer was more interested in making it look pretty than be usable. For example:

1) Blue text on a black background is a no-no, it's very difficult to read.

2) It's a fixed width layout. Let the user decide his browser window size.

3) I don't like the navigation on the right - that's the normal place for advertisements and my eye just wants to ignore it.

4) The fonts are too small (a problem that rears its ugly head when one gets a little older!)

5) The site jarringly switches to look like: http://www.rubygarden.org/faq/

6) The search box is faded out, I missed it the first couple times I looked for it.

I do like the ruby logo, though. Nice!

Lutger wrote:
> Bill Baxter wrote:
>> That said I like the curent D site.  A *touch* of color (preferably not more red) wouldn't hurt in softening the predominantly gray look.  But overall I think it looks fairly professional, except for MS-Paint style images here and there.
>>
>> --bb
> 
> I agree. A good looking site should be coupled with good and easy to find content. The current D site has a lot of easy to find content, which is most important. Note how much info there is on every page without looking all cluttered and noisy like the php site, those make me want to leave ASAP.

I agree it could look better, but without sacrificing readability and usability. For example, all the content is accessible by one or two clicks.

Oskar Linde wrote:
> Attached: 18-color quantized PNG. 4.8 kB.

Much better, thanks.

Bill Baxter wrote:

> Now let's have the discussion we should have been having :-) -- why is there a poorly drawn cartoon 'D' apparently cheering for himself on the overview page?  It makes no sense.  At best it looks like he's trying to say "I'm D and I think I'm awesome" like some hot shot 4 year old on a playground full of 3 year olds.
> 
> It's cute, but it would make much more sense on the "How To Promote D" page or a "D Success Stories" page than on the public introduction, which will be read by a bunch of people who are probably skeptical about D to begin with.

Ok, but a lot of people have done alternative images but none of them have had that catchy feeling of 'rightness' to them.

A story: back when the US Air Force was splitting itself off to be independent from the US Army, they had a contest to find the AF theme song. They duly had the contest, and duly picked and announced a winner. Then, they ran across the song that starts "up we go, into the wild blue yonder".

That was instantly it. The new song was just so *right* that the previous winner (now long forgotten) was ditched, the contest repudiated, and the new song anointed. Nobody objected.

Tom wrote:
> If you allow me, I would like to help improving the "look and feel" of digitalmars
> (changing the stylesheet, template, submitting some images, etc.). Give me some
> time (which I have so little lately), and I'll post some real alternatives for you
> (and the community) to throw your opinions.

Send me your email address, and I'll send you the template and the style sheet.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Tom wrote:
>>
>> http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
> 
> To be frank, I don't like that page, I think the graphic designer was more interested in making it look pretty than be usable. For example:
> 
> 1) Blue text on a black background is a no-no, it's very difficult to read.
> 
> 2) It's a fixed width layout. Let the user decide his browser window size.

I kind of like the page, though I think it's a bit 'cute'.  However, I do agree with the above.

> 3) I don't like the navigation on the right - that's the normal place for advertisements and my eye just wants to ignore it.

I learned from a film student friend of mine that the eye naturally travels up and to the right across an image.  This is used a lot in character and object placement in film to make something or someone appear more or less imposing, larger or smaller, etc.  For web pages, I think it relates to what you feel is important on the page.  The eye will naturally start on the left side of the page so the most important items probably belong there, with less important ones to the right.  I think it's a matter of context, however, whether navigation items are more or less important than the page content.  For tree-oriented navigation (file browsers, class hierarchy documentation) I think it makes sense for navigation to be on the left, but for article-oriented navigation I think it makes sense for navigation to be on the right. The Ruby website seems article-oriented so the layout works for me, but I would expect it to change if I navigated to a reference manual or similar document.

> 4) The fonts are too small (a problem that rears its ugly head when one gets a little older!)

The font can be resized in the browser view options so this doesn't bother me.  Having two monitors side-by-side with different resolutions, I tend to change font size a lot from within the browser depending on which screen the browser window is displayed.

> 5) The site jarringly switches to look like: http://www.rubygarden.org/faq/

To be fair, this is a completely different website.  But I do think the ideal solution would be for the main Ruby stylesheet to be public domain so related sites could use it and therefore present a consistent look. The same applies here.  With a public selection of logos, stylesheet, etc, all D sites that wanted to could appear similar, making cross-linking less jarring.  It also saves web-inept people like me from having to be creative about layout, since a template of sorts would already be available.  I think you said that the digitalmars stylesheet is already public?


Sean

Walter Bright wrote:
> Ok, but a lot of people have done alternative images but none of them have had that catchy feeling of 'rightness' to them.
> 
> A story: back when the US Air Force was splitting itself off to be independent from the US Army, they had a contest to find the AF theme song. They duly had the contest, and duly picked and announced a winner. Then, they ran across the song that starts "up we go, into the wild blue yonder".
> 
> That was instantly it. The new song was just so *right* that the previous winner (now long forgotten) was ditched, the contest repudiated, and the new song anointed. Nobody objected.

Very amusing story!  The only moral I can seem to get out of it though is that the D man shouldn't be anointed as the "winner" before Mr. "so right" shows up.

Is an image really even required on the intro page?

He looks to me like he's either cheering someone on or just won a race. So I do think he's perfect for any page about how to promote D, or about D success stories.

In a picture for the introduction to D, if Mr. D is to be there, he should be doing something like bowing a hearty welcome, with top-hat clutched to his chest and a black cane in the other hand, outstretched to the side.  Something that says "Greetings, we humbly welcome you to our abode."  Rather than "woo woo we're so awesome!"

--bb

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Tom wrote:
> > == Quote from Walter Bright (newshound@digitalmars.com)'s article
> >> Do you have a url of a programming site that looks good? (I mean, it's easier to talk about if given examples of "lights and mirrors" to compare.)
> >
> > Obviously I've exaggerated a little :) about all the "lights and mirrors" stuff. I wasn't literally talking of course, was just saying.
> >
> > But well, Bill gave us a nice example of (IMO) a nice looking web page:
> >
> > http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/
> To be frank, I don't like that page, I think the graphic designer was
> more interested in making it look pretty than be usable. For example:
> 1) Blue text on a black background is a no-no, it's very difficult to read.
> 2) It's a fixed width layout. Let the user decide his browser window size.
> 3) I don't like the navigation on the right - that's the normal place
> for advertisements and my eye just wants to ignore it.
> 4) The fonts are too small (a problem that rears its ugly head when one
> gets a little older!)
> 5) The site jarringly switches to look like: http://www.rubygarden.org/faq/
> 6) The search box is faded out, I missed it the first couple times I
> looked for it.
> I do like the ruby logo, though. Nice!

I agree but we don't need to copy all those defects, and yet we can imitate all the good design choices. Luckily we are free to improve over the "mistakes" of other people ;D

== Quote from Walter Bright (newshound@digitalmars.com)'s article
> Tom wrote:
> > If you allow me, I would like to help improving the "look and feel" of digitalmars
> > (changing the stylesheet, template, submitting some images, etc.). Give me some
> > time (which I have so little lately), and I'll post some real alternatives for you
> > (and the community) to throw your opinions.
> Send me your email address, and I'll send you the template and the style sheet.

My email is the result of evaluating:

my_email_at("gmail.com");

with

char[] my_email_at(char[] domain) {
	char[] username = "siostar";
	return username[4..$] ~ username[2..4] ~
		username[0..2] ~ "@" ~ domain;
}


We all hate spam so... I know, this is not funny. :D

--
Tom;