The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.
Thanks, Rubyland.
_why
why the lucky stiff wrote:
The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our
first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you
can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post
them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.Thanks, Rubyland.
_why
You can either post on the blog, or you can join the discussion ML:
http://rubyforge.org/mail/?group_id=556
Curt
(Posted on the blog - but I thought I'd bring it up here too)
I like the design of both layouts. But IMO this poll should really be
about selecting the "default" template for ruby-lang.org. I don't know
how flexible the (X)HTML is - but shouldn't it be possible to ship a
bunch of CSS's and let the user choose which one to use?
//Anders
On Fri, Mar 11, 2005 at 11:12:29PM +0900, why the lucky stiff wrote:
The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our
first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you
can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post
them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.
--
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. Anders Engström aengstrom@gnejs.net
. http://www.gnejs.net PGP-Key: ED010E7F
. [Your mind is like an umbrella. It doesn't work unless you open it.]
It looks good.. its difficult to choose.
Aredridel suggested to put a link to a mac binary on the frontpage.
The number of mac persons that does ruby seems high.
On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 23:12:29 +0900, why the lucky stiff <ruby-talk@whytheluckystiff.net> wrote:
The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our
first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you
can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post
them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.
--
Simon Strandgaard
The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our
first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you
can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post
them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.
Thanks team for your effort.
My take on this:
When it comes to the content, or picking what should go in the front
page, choosing what's hot, popular or having the power of igniting a
superb Ruby PR machine I think it should be wise to have a good read
at Paul Graham's essay on popularity.
Matz has been quoted several times talking about his fondness for
LISP, and how it helped him to figure out what Ruby should be, and I
think there's a great deal of wisdom we're inheriting from the LISP
hackers that preceded us.
Graham has the ability to put into simple words what would otherwise
take me rivers of ink (or carpal syndrome) for me to write about.
http://www.paulgraham.com/popular.html
Especially paragraph number 9.
And then redesign, comment, ellaborate some more, and think of what we
REALLY want for the long term.
cheers,
vruz
why the lucky stiff wrote:
The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.
All design studies I saw so far at first sight look nice but at second sight are not so good.
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/john-rubyred-3.0.png
shows large text using serif fonts and small text using sans-serif. If one uses both kinds of fonts it should be the other way round. One also should not use underlined and non-underlined links. Given the link text/other text ratio one should stick to non-underlined links.
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/michel-clean-1.1.png
definitely is better. What I do not understand is why it reads 'Español' but not '日本語'. Background color is very bright. Something like the one on the right of http://redhanded.hobix.com/images/ruby-org-mockup.gif were better (not to use too bright background colors is a matter of accessibility, some people have problems with to strong contrasts).
Just my 0.02 EUR
Josef 'Jupp' Schugt
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post
them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.Thanks, Rubyland.
This is something I've made using the (IMHO) best features of the
proposed designs:
http://vworkers.com/vruz/stuff/screenshots/ruby-home.png
The logo is basically a re-arrangement of 'Clean', sans-serifing
everything, shifting the colour palette, using 'Ruby-Red' as the base
and borrowing some sections from 'Clean'.
I'd be happy with a polished version of this combined look, but I'd
still debate a little more about the content.
why the lucky stiff wrote:
>
> The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our
> first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you
> can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.
>
> http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
>
> Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post
> them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.
>
> Thanks, Rubyland.
>
> _whyYou can either post on the blog, or you can join the discussion ML:
These look really great!
* Curt Hibbs (curt@hibbs.com) wrote:
Curt
--
Paul Duncan <pabs@pablotron.org> pabs in #ruby-lang (OPN IRC)
http://www.pablotron.org/ OpenPGP Key ID: 0x82C29562
Anders Engström wrote:
(Posted on the blog - but I thought I'd bring it up here too)
I like the design of both layouts. But IMO this poll should really be
about selecting the "default" template for ruby-lang.org. I don't know
how flexible the (X)HTML is - but shouldn't it be possible to ship a
bunch of CSS's and let the user choose which one to use?
To make it easier for those of us working on the project, it would be really helpful if the comments on the two designs were put on the blog, and comments about the process in general, or any other Ruby site design things went to the vit-discuss mailing list:
http://rubyforge.org/mail/?group_id=556
Ben
Excerpts from Anders Engstr?m's mail of 11 Mar 2005 (EST):
I like the design of both layouts. But IMO this poll should really be
about selecting the "default" template for ruby-lang.org. I don't know
how flexible the (X)HTML is - but shouldn't it be possible to ship a
bunch of CSS's and let the user choose which one to use?
Maybe this is OT, but check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ for a cool
example of multiple CSS choices over the same HTML. I think my favorite
is "table layout assassination!".
--
William <wmorgan-ruby-talk@masanjin.net>
Simon Strandgaard wrote:
Aredridel suggested to put a link to a mac binary on the frontpage.
The number of mac persons that does ruby seems high.
There should be an OSX version of the One-Click Ruby Installer fairly soon,
so this shouldn't be a problem.
Curt
why the lucky stiff wrote:
The vit-core team (assigned to redesign ruby-lang.org) has unveiled our first two designs today. We're rolling these out with a new blog so you can comment on each design and watch the RSS feed for updates.
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/
Your feedback is essential to this project! If you have comments, post them on the blog soon so we can move this project along.All design studies I saw so far at first sight look nice but at second sight are not so good.
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/john-rubyred-3.0.png
shows large text using serif fonts and small text using sans-serif. If one uses both kinds of fonts it should be the other way round.
I was convinced that the conventional wisdom was that sans-serif body text fonts are more readable at the low DPI you get out of most monitors, though actually now that I spent a whole 60 seconds Googling I wasn't able to come up with anything substantive either way. Personally, I just redesigned my site, using serif fonts as body text ... this might be less legible to some people, but, you know, I use a modern OS with decent anti-aliasing, so it all looks fine to me 
One also should not use underlined and non-underlined links. Given the link text/other text ratio one should stick to non-underlined links.
Consistency is important, but I'd argue the other way: You better have your links underlined, otherwise you're going to leave your readers madly scrubbing around the page hunting for links. Life's too short.
There are ways to tone down the visual impact of those underlines using CSS, if you're concerned about what all that underlining is going to look like.
Francis Hwang
On Mar 13, 2005, at 3:27 PM, Josef 'Jupp' Schugt wrote:
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/michel-clean-1.1.png
definitely is better. What I do not understand is why it reads 'Español'
but not '日本語'. Background color is very bright. Something like the
one on the right of
http://redhanded.hobix.com/images/ruby-org-mockup.gif were better (not
to use too bright background colors is a matter of accessibility, some
people have problems with to strong contrasts).
I think more have problems with low contrast, in my experience.
This is something I've made using the (IMHO) best features of the
proposed designs:
forgot to add
http://www.vworkers.com/vruz/stuff/ruby.graphics/
the logo in SVG and other formats
William Morgan wrote:
Maybe this is OT, but check out http://www.csszengarden.com/ for a cool
example of multiple CSS choices over the same HTML. I think my favorite
is "table layout assassination!".
That is pretty sweet, thx for posting that link,
Zach
I was convinced that the conventional wisdom was that sans-serif body
text fonts are more readable at the low DPI you get out of most
monitors, though actually now that I spent a whole 60 seconds Googling
I wasn't able to come up with anything substantive either way.
Personally, I just redesigned my site, using serif fonts as body text
... this might be less legible to some people, but, you know, I use a
modern OS with decent anti-aliasing, so it all looks fine to me
Yeah. Moreso, modern hinting (which even Windows 98 does well enough) is
quite adequate to getting things looking good with serifs.
> One also should not use underlined and non-underlined links. Given the
> link text/other text ratio one should stick to non-underlined links.Consistency is important, but I'd argue the other way: You better have
your links underlined, otherwise you're going to leave your readers
madly scrubbing around the page hunting for links. Life's too short.
Underlines ++
Ari
Almost every web site uses black on white because it gives the *most*
contrast... if you have a problem, or know anyone with such a problem,
suggest to them to make their monitor less bright.
Douglas
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 13:46:02 +0900, Aredridel <aredridel@gmail.com> wrote:
> (not
> to use too bright background colors is a matter of accessibility, some
> people have problems with to strong contrasts).
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/john-rubyred-3.0.png
shows large text using serif fonts and small text using sans-serif. If one uses both kinds of fonts it should be the other way round.I was convinced that the conventional wisdom was that sans-serif body text fonts are more readable at the low DPI you get out of most monitors, though actually now that I spent a whole 60 seconds Googling I wasn't able to come up with anything substantive either way.
Sans-serif is the better choice for screen fonts:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
martinus
> I was convinced that the conventional wisdom was that sans-serif body
> text fonts are more readable at the low DPI you get out of most
> monitors, though actually now that I spent a whole 60 seconds Googling I
> wasn't able to come up with anything substantive either way.Sans-serif is the better choice for screen fonts:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
very informative and useful link, thank you
Is that what you'd take away from this study? What about the author's statement that "...it is really too early to draw any definitive conclusions from this. Studies need to further examine the effect of different fonts on reading comprehension." ?
Personally I'd at least like to see some sort of a publication date (other than the "Last update" notice at the bottom of the page; those are often not that reliable.) I'd also be interested in what OS was used in the study, since different OSs can make fonts look much more or less legible.
Mostly, though, I'm just looking for an excuse to not use any more Arial or Verdana ... At some point this past year I realized I was just getting really tired of looking at those fonts.
Francis Hwang
On Mar 15, 2005, at 9:01 AM, martin.ankerl@gmail.com wrote:
http://redhanded.hobix.com/redesign2005/images/john-rubyred-3.0.png
shows large text using serif fonts and small text using sans-serif. If one uses both kinds of fonts it should be the other way round.I was convinced that the conventional wisdom was that sans-serif body text fonts are more readable at the low DPI you get out of most monitors, though actually now that I spent a whole 60 seconds Googling I wasn't able to come up with anything substantive either way.
Sans-serif is the better choice for screen fonts:
http://psychology.wichita.edu/optimalweb/text.htm
