The design metaphor of the new Ruby website should be `usability'
(which the existing website could easily fulfill if it is subjected
to some natural selection) and not `inexperienced decoration' -- Ruby
is the most usable programming language available today so anything
related to it should also shine with usability all the way through,
in order to keep Ruby's identity consistent. Learn from the masters:
I've been reading their stuff for years, and you're right -- these
people know what they're talking about. On the other hand, do what they
say, not what they do. That website has always been an eyesore.
Usability need not be synonymous with "fugly". Also, despite the
expertise behind these people, they suffer from an apparent inability to
follow their own advice all the time: at first glance, I see a few
violations of their own principles right there on the first page.
As for the rest, you make some points, but to be accurate their wattage
needs to be reduced about 50%. Yes, the logo should be adjusted, but
the size of the ruby isn't an unmitigated disaster. Yes, the "pretty
factor" is a little more than necessary, but it's not overwhelmingly
Frankly, there are really only two things about the appearance of the
design to be really examined, as far as I can see:
1. Is there anything about the design that's simply gratuitous? Go
through every single design decision and, for each one, ask yourself
whether it could be scaled back without losing anything.
2. Why the heck doesn't it take advantage of the entire width of the
user's browser? I seem to recall that the design had a fixed width,
while the "old" design has a width that varies with browser window
size. I could be wrong (and the new design is gone now so that I
can't double-check), but if it's not a fixed width I think it probably
at least has a bit too much of a trough on either side of the main
That's not to say that text should be bleeding off the sides, of course.
Keep the width of the content area narrow enough in comparison to the
screen width to make it appear to be a cohesive package. Just don't
waste screen real estate as the browser gets resized.
I hope I didn't offend the author of the redesign. But if he's a good
designer, he won't feel offended.
. . . even when you said he was obviously some kind of inferior amateur
because a good designer would never have made such errors? I understand
your intent, but it could probably have been delivered a little more
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 01:21:44AM +0900, Kyrre Nygård wrote:
CCD CopyWrite Chad Perrin [ http://ccd.apotheon.org ]
"It's just incredible that a trillion-synapse computer could actually
spend Saturday afternoon watching a football game." - Marvin Minsky