Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Websites you like

From: "Gavin M(dot) Roy" <gmr(at)ehpg(dot)net>
To: josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com
Cc: pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Websites you like
Date: 2004-06-21 21:30:07
Message-ID: 40D7535F.8090106@ehpg.net (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-www
I'm fine with a new direction, that being said, let me clear up a 
misconception and ask more questions to get moving in the right direction.

>>Since it looks like the current mockup isn't too well received, please 
>>take the time to provide me with a list of  your favorite open source 
>>project related websites, that way we can come up with a composite look 
>>that meets people's taste.
>>    
>>
>
>Actually, I like it, at least conceptually.    I agree that the "giant logo" 
>has to go -- it loads funny on Konqueror, and adds significant K to the page.   
>  
>
I've not tested for Konq.  The "giant logo" took 12k total, and the 
entire page was graphically light with under 20k total of graphics.  
Even on a 56k modem that should load quite quickly.

>But I like the format of the boxes and the news items.  One other thing which 
>would have to change would be the link boxes; I don't think the space 
>allocated for them would be sufficient, given what we have to cover.
>  
>
This lends the question of how much different do we want the site to 
look?  Most of the sites presented by everyone were very similar in 
structure, and also not very graphically oriented, which is fine, it's 
just a matter of what are we trying to achieve.

We have the main site which is fairly bland design wise, then a site 
like advocacy which tries to make a graphical presentation, but the 
design doesn't say "PostgreSQL" when you look at it.  I think it would 
be good to try and achieve a middle ground here, something that is 
visually appealing with well organized content.

This leads me to the next question, can we agree upon the answers for 
the following questions?

1) How big should the template web page be sans ads and content - total 
KB for the layout html, navigation, graphics, but excluding any 
content.  10K, 25K, 50K?  If we can't come to a common consensus as to 
target, lets at least choose a maximum size.

2) HTML Version, Compliance, etc... (HTML 3.0, 3.2, 4.0, XHTML)

3) Can it/should it use CSS (1.0?)?

4) Colors: Can the site use colors and/or pictures and graphics that 
fall outside the current gray scale and gray-blue?

5) Design goals - Should the design goal be to come up with something 
that looks like other sites, but with a unique PgSQL touch, or should it 
strive to be individualistic, and stand out when compared to many of the 
sites listed?  Do we want to deviate much from what's there now?  What 
are the tolerance levels for pushing the envelope?

6) Once we get a few more design suggestions submitted, how do we narrow 
the focus and chose one, since we can't please everyone?

Maybe we can get a statistical breakdown of the top 10 browsers and 
versions for the current site, at least on the main repository at 
hub.org to get an idea of what browsers we're primarily designing for.

Gavin



In response to

Responses

pgsql-www by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2004-06-22 07:40:19
Subject: Re: Websites you like
Previous:From: Peter EisentrautDate: 2004-06-21 21:00:03
Subject: Re: Websites you like

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group