Here are the meeting minutes from last night: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Meetings/2008-08-18
somewhat-updated task list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
thanks, Max
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Max Spevack mspevack@redhat.com wrote:
Here are the meeting minutes from last night: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Meetings/2008-08-18
somewhat-updated task list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
thanks, Max
-- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
Task name: Common look and feel
I believe i'm partly the one that works on that since i'm trying to get the amber mockups in a real website state and it's going quite fine at the moment. The outer frame (not amber specific) should be the default of all of fedora's sites or that's how i understood it. Shame i saw this meeting message one day to late..
To see the current progress on my effort look here: http://browsershots.org/http://amber.mageprojects.com/ it currently works quite well under even old browsers! Just the next step: "animated menu" proves to be a pain in the ass.
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 18:39 +0200, Mark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 2:24 PM, Max Spevack mspevack@redhat.com wrote:
Here are the meeting minutes from last night: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Meetings/2008-08-18
somewhat-updated task list https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks
thanks, Max
-- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
Task name: Common look and feel
Is there a wiki page explaining the scope and goal of this task? I've caught some of the cross-chatter but don't understand what amber is, nor how it relates to 'Fedora applications'. Nor much else, apparently. :)
thx - Karsten
I believe i'm partly the one that works on that since i'm trying to get the amber mockups in a real website state and it's going quite fine at the moment. The outer frame (not amber specific) should be the default of all of fedora's sites or that's how i understood it. Shame i saw this meeting message one day to late..
To see the current progress on my effort look here: http://browsershots.org/http://amber.mageprojects.com/ it currently works quite well under even old browsers! Just the next step: "animated menu" proves to be a pain in the ass.
Hi Mark,
Mark wrote:
Task name: Common look and feel
I believe i'm partly the one that works on that since i'm trying to get the amber mockups in a real website state and it's going quite fine at the moment. The outer frame (not amber specific) should be the default of all of fedora's sites or that's how i understood it. Shame i saw this meeting message one day to late..
To see the current progress on my effort look here: http://browsershots.org/http://amber.mageprojects.com/ it currently works quite well under even old browsers! Just the next step: "animated menu" proves to be a pain in the ass.
I've actually been working on a generic Fedora applications layout based on the earlier mockups I'd posted; the html/CSS I have so far is here:
http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/My%20Fedora/html/
It inherits from the existing fedoraproject.org css which i think is important...
~m
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Hi Mark,
Mark wrote:
Task name: Common look and feel
I believe i'm partly the one that works on that since i'm trying to get the amber mockups in a real website state and it's going quite fine at the moment. The outer frame (not amber specific) should be the default of all of fedora's sites or that's how i understood it. Shame i saw this meeting message one day to late..
To see the current progress on my effort look here: http://browsershots.org/http://amber.mageprojects.com/ it currently works quite well under even old browsers! Just the next step: "animated menu" proves to be a pain in the ass.
I've actually been working on a generic Fedora applications layout based on the earlier mockups I'd posted; the html/CSS I have so far is here:
http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/My%20Fedora/html/
It inherits from the existing fedoraproject.org css which i think is important...
~m
Hi Máirín
My version was first inheriting from fedoraproject as well bus is now made from scratch because the left menu was hard to give a background using the existing style.css from fp.
@Karsten 'quaid' Wade And (again) for amber. The frame around the amber layout is gonna be generic for all of fedora (or that's the idea) and that's what you can see live now at: http://amber.mageprojects.com/ the only thing i have to finish there before the frame is done is the left menu. the rest is about done for the generic frame.
And this is how it should look when i'm done for amber: http://yipyop.com/fedora/images/fedora_apps.png
But now that i saw the post of Máirín.. which one is gonna be used as the default frame for fedora and it's sub domains? mine or Máirín's? (i really need to participate in the next meeting) mailed as a cc to Robin Norwood in the hope that he can give his opinion about this as well.
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 20:12 +0200, Mark wrote:
And this is how it should look when i'm done for amber: http://yipyop.com/fedora/images/fedora_apps.png
OK, I can now make some guesses about what Amber is, as well as what Fedora Applications is.
That screenshot looks fairly far reaching in terms of scope; 'Categories' and 'Articles' jump out to me.
Is there some kind of project description, scope, use cases, etc.?
Sorry that I'm late to this, I missed earlier discussion here I reckon and am trying to catch up.
But now that i saw the post of Máirín.. which one is gonna be used as the default frame for fedora and it's sub domains? mine or Máirín's? (i really need to participate in the next meeting) mailed as a cc to Robin Norwood in the hope that he can give his opinion about this as well.
I've seen several people working on the task of a common look and feel for Fedora websites. Maybe we can sort it out on list and get the tasks on the list:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks#The_list
cheers - Karsten
2008/8/19 Karsten 'quaid' Wade kwade@redhat.com:
On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 20:12 +0200, Mark wrote:
And this is how it should look when i'm done for amber: http://yipyop.com/fedora/images/fedora_apps.png
OK, I can now make some guesses about what Amber is, as well as what Fedora Applications is.
That screenshot looks fairly far reaching in terms of scope; 'Categories' and 'Articles' jump out to me.
Is there some kind of project description, scope, use cases, etc.?
Sorry that I'm late to this, I missed earlier discussion here I reckon and am trying to catch up.
But now that i saw the post of Máirín.. which one is gonna be used as the default frame for fedora and it's sub domains? mine or Máirín's? (i really need to participate in the next meeting) mailed as a cc to Robin Norwood in the hope that he can give his opinion about this as well.
I've seen several people working on the task of a common look and feel for Fedora websites. Maybe we can sort it out on list and get the tasks on the list:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/Tasks#The_list
cheers - Karsten
Karsten Wade, Sr. Developer Community Mgr. Dev Fu : http://developer.redhatmagazine.com Fedora : http://quaid.fedorapeople.org gpg key : AD0E0C41
-- Fedora-websites-list mailing list Fedora-websites-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-websites-list
Wiki for "Amber" http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/ApplicationInstaller
And i why add it on the task list when it's already there: "Common look and feel" It just also needs to say who is working on it. Right now it's getting kinda frustrating to see that 2 people are working on the exact same thing while i did posted it here on the websites list from the start (as was requested from me).
Named: "Developing the Amber layout form the mockups; Improving the fedoraproject frame; How to proceed?" (long title i know)
Mark wrote:
And i why add it on the task list when it's already there: "Common look and feel" It just also needs to say who is working on it. Right now it's getting kinda frustrating to see that 2 people are working on the exact same thing while i did posted it here on the websites list from the start (as was requested from me).
I think this is probably a case of poor communication on both sides. The Amber project unfortunately has not been discussed much at all on websites list and not at all in any of the websites meetings. While I know the design of the Fedora applications html/css has been discussed in various meetings, it's something that has been talked about a long time but the push for getting things done has only been in the past month or so. I have made some planet Fedora posts about the work suchs as this one:
http://mihmo.livejournal.com/58834.html
Which was also brought up on this list not soon after:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-websites-list/2008-July/msg00019.html
So it seems like we've just missed each other.
i don't really think it is so important how we got into this situation, more importantly how will we resolve this. And I don't think throwing away and redoing the master fpo css is the answer.
~m
Máirín Duffy wrote:
i don't really think it is so important how we got into this situation, more importantly how will we resolve this. And I don't think throwing away and redoing the master fpo css is the answer.
Just for everyone's benefit, Mark and I discussed this on IRC and Mark is going to move forward with the Amber-specific widgets and we'll stick with the applications css that works with the master fedora CSS since I think we agreed following that model is the right way to do things.
The general model we're thinking of following is this:
fedora main master css + fedora applications css + your amber css = amber css fedora main master css + fedora application css + my fedora css = my fedora css fedora main master css + fedora application css + fas css = FAS css
Also we both agreed to use this list as our main communication channel as to avoid some of the miscommunications that happened before! :)
~m
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 10:24 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
Máirín Duffy wrote:
i don't really think it is so important how we got into this situation, more importantly how will we resolve this. And I don't think throwing away and redoing the master fpo css is the answer.
Just for everyone's benefit, Mark and I discussed this on IRC and Mark is going to move forward with the Amber-specific widgets and we'll stick with the applications css that works with the master fedora CSS since I think we agreed following that model is the right way to do things.
The general model we're thinking of following is this:
fedora main master css + fedora applications css + your amber css = amber css fedora main master css + fedora application css + my fedora css = my fedora css fedora main master css + fedora application css + fas css = FAS css
Also we both agreed to use this list as our main communication channel as to avoid some of the miscommunications that happened before! :)
~m
Fully agreed on all. I will post my amber related updates here on this list.
Mark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org wrote:
http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/My%20Fedora/html/
It inherits from the existing fedoraproject.org css which i think is important...
My version was first inheriting from fedoraproject as well bus is now made from scratch because the left menu was hard to give a background using the existing style.css from fp.
Mine does inherit from the fedoraproject.org master CSS and has the tabs.
@Karsten 'quaid' Wade And (again) for amber. The frame around the amber layout is gonna be generic for all of fedora (or that's the idea) and that's what you can see live now at: http://amber.mageprojects.com/ the only thing i have to finish there before the frame is done is the left menu. the rest is about done for the generic frame.
And this is how it should look when i'm done for amber: http://yipyop.com/fedora/images/fedora_apps.png
So I'm working on the basic layout including the tabs on the left, which came out of the my fedora design:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MyFedora/Mockups
We don't have those little teaser boxes for applications though so maybe if you can do the styling for those we can include it?
I'm really worried about duplication of efforts here. And we definitely should not be throwing away all the work done on the fpo master stylesheet and re-doing it either.
But now that i saw the post of Máirín.. which one is gonna be used as the default frame for fedora and it's sub domains? mine or Máirín's? (i really need to participate in the next meeting) mailed as a cc to Robin Norwood in the hope that he can give his opinion about this as well.
~m
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 05:00:30 Máirín Duffy wrote:
Mark wrote:
On Tue, Aug 19, 2008 at 7:38 PM, Máirín Duffy duffy@fedoraproject.org
wrote:
http://duffy.fedorapeople.org/webdesign/My%20Fedora/html/
It inherits from the existing fedoraproject.org css which i think is important...
My version was first inheriting from fedoraproject as well bus is now made from scratch because the left menu was hard to give a background using the existing style.css from fp.
Mine does inherit from the fedoraproject.org master CSS and has the tabs.
@Karsten 'quaid' Wade And (again) for amber. The frame around the amber layout is gonna be generic for all of fedora (or that's the idea) and that's what you can see live now at: http://amber.mageprojects.com/ the only thing i have to finish there before the frame is done is the left menu. the rest is about done for the generic frame.
And this is how it should look when i'm done for amber: http://yipyop.com/fedora/images/fedora_apps.png
So I'm working on the basic layout including the tabs on the left, which came out of the my fedora design:
Just a humble drive-by comment here, and let me first point at that I am a developer, not a designer:
I'm wondering if the left-side tabs are taking too much prime real-estate on the page? I'm guessing many of our users are still on 1024x768 screens, and the tabbed menu steal much of the attention and space on the page. Contrast this with e.g. http://l10n.gnome.org/ where the black bar on top provides a non-intrusive way of jumping between applications (sadly, this theme is not followed through in other gnome sites though..).
I think the point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme that the applications plug into shouldn't steal the attention or real-estate away from the real use of the page. Does this make sense?
cheers, asgeir
We don't have those little teaser boxes for applications though so maybe if you can do the styling for those we can include it?
I'm really worried about duplication of efforts here. And we definitely should not be throwing away all the work done on the fpo master stylesheet and re-doing it either.
But now that i saw the post of Máirín.. which one is gonna be used as the default frame for fedora and it's sub domains? mine or Máirín's? (i really need to participate in the next meeting) mailed as a cc to Robin Norwood in the hope that he can give his opinion about this as well.
~m
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
I'm wondering if the left-side tabs are taking too much prime real-estate on the page?
The original mockups for Fedora applications including the tabs were designed for 800x600. I think 1024x768 is a more realistic standard these days. Since the design works fine in 800x600 I am not too worried.
They are on the left side, because especially in cases of i18n, things can get long and if you have horizontal tabs, it really limits how many total tabs you can have. If the tabs run vertically and their labels can line wrap, then you can have more tabs as the number of tabs grows vertically which is pretty much limitless (although of course you don't want ridiculous numbers of tabs.)
I've worked on a couple of web apps where the main nav was horizontal tabs across the top, and it did cause a lot of problems as we ran out of space a few times and had to completely readjust and shuffle things around to stick to only the 6-7 items that would fit horizontally across.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme that the applications plug into shouldn't steal the attention or real-estate away from the real use of the page. Does this make sense?
It makes sense, and although I don't agree that they steal attention inappropriately, there are ways of toning down the tabs if it does become an issue. Fair enough, because these designs haven't been tested on users yet. It sounds like your concern is more for the visual treatment of the tabs than their placement, and the visual treatment can certainly be tweaked somewhat. If you have suggestions let's talk through them.
~m
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 11:42:43 Máirín Duffy wrote:
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
I'm wondering if the left-side tabs are taking too much prime real-estate on the page?
The original mockups for Fedora applications including the tabs were designed for 800x600. I think 1024x768 is a more realistic standard these days. Since the design works fine in 800x600 I am not too worried.
They are on the left side, because especially in cases of i18n, things can get long and if you have horizontal tabs, it really limits how many total tabs you can have. If the tabs run vertically and their labels can line wrap, then you can have more tabs as the number of tabs grows vertically which is pretty much limitless (although of course you don't want ridiculous numbers of tabs.)
I've worked on a couple of web apps where the main nav was horizontal tabs across the top, and it did cause a lot of problems as we ran out of space a few times and had to completely readjust and shuffle things around to stick to only the 6-7 items that would fit horizontally across.
I think the point I'm trying to make is that the overall theme that the applications plug into shouldn't steal the attention or real-estate away from the real use of the page. Does this make sense?
It makes sense, and although I don't agree that they steal attention inappropriately, there are ways of toning down the tabs if it does become an issue. Fair enough, because these designs haven't been tested on users yet. It sounds like your concern is more for the visual treatment of the tabs than their placement, and the visual treatment can certainly be tweaked somewhat. If you have suggestions let's talk through them.
I was more thinking of this from a development point-of-view. The tabs do eat space that could be better used for the main functionality of the application. I'm thinking of this in terms of the L10N infrastructure specifically, where we do need as much horizontal space as possible for the main application (e.g. translation statistics, transifex submission, online translation)... I would limit the overall 'theme' to a smaller and less intrusive 'frame' of the application, e.g. how Google separates its' services (horizontal <20px bar on top). I do really like the overall theme of the page though :)
But again, I totally agree with you, I do have developer goggles on, and user- based testing would be a better approach to determining this:)
cheers, asgeir
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
I was more thinking of this from a development point-of-view. The tabs do eat space that could be better used for the main functionality of the application. I'm thinking of this in terms of the L10N infrastructure specifically, where we do need as much horizontal space as possible for the main application (e.g. translation statistics, transifex submission, online translation)... I would limit the overall 'theme' to a smaller and less intrusive 'frame' of the application, e.g. how Google separates its' services (horizontal <20px bar on top). I do really like the overall theme of the page though :)
Seriously? Out of a 1024 pixel wide screen, that sidebar takes up less than 200 px. That gives the main content area 80% of the horizontal width of the screen which seems a quite reasonable ratio to me. You do need SOME whitespace on the screen. Cramming information into every last bit of space is not as efficient as it might seem at first glance, especially in a complicated application interface where you risk overwhelming the user with data.
You wouldn't worry more about having 8 tabs horizontally across the top, their German translations making the last two or three tabs scroll horizotnally or jump down the next row? I don't think i18n is really a good justification for your stance here.
~m
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 12:36:23 Máirín Duffy wrote:
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
I was more thinking of this from a development point-of-view. The tabs do eat space that could be better used for the main functionality of the application. I'm thinking of this in terms of the L10N infrastructure specifically, where we do need as much horizontal space as possible for the main application (e.g. translation statistics, transifex submission, online translation)... I would limit the overall 'theme' to a smaller and less intrusive 'frame' of the application, e.g. how Google separates its' services (horizontal <20px bar on top). I do really like the overall theme of the page though :)
Seriously? Out of a 1024 pixel wide screen, that sidebar takes up less than 200 px. That gives the main content area 80% of the horizontal width of the screen which seems a quite reasonable ratio to me. You do need SOME whitespace on the screen. Cramming information into every last bit of space is not as efficient as it might seem at first glance, especially in a complicated application interface where you risk overwhelming the user with data.
Overwhelming the user is my main concern, yes. Using the extra 200 px for an application-based menu/toolbox/help-view, rather than cramming it in the remaining 80%, would be much more favorable than 'wasting' it on a sub-optimal global navigation.
You wouldn't worry more about having 8 tabs horizontally across the top, their German translations making the last two or three tabs scroll horizotnally or jump down the next row? I don't think i18n is really a good justification for your stance here.
That depends on how dominant this menu is on the page. To me, a global navigation on a site like fpo should be clearly visible, but also easily 'ignorable' when working within a specific application. For example, google.com has 12 Items in its' global menu (7 navigation, 5 other) when logged in, and is localised in many languages, including German (which naturally takes more space).
If the target is a site where the global navigation is a dominant element of the page, then yes, I see your point, and having these tabs horizontally wouldn't be feasible. But if the target is a Fedora themed 'frame' for applications to inherit, with a non-intrusive global navigation, then I think the proposal is a bit off target, and a smaller horizontal global navigation would be a better option. That's my 2 cents.
cheers, asgeir
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
Overwhelming the user is my main concern, yes. Using the extra 200 px for an application-based menu/toolbox/help-view, rather than cramming it in the remaining 80%, would be much more favorable than 'wasting' it on a sub-optimal global navigation.
You know, this all sounds well and good, but means absolutely nothing without user feedback and testing of the specific designs we are discussing. Of which we have nothing to back either of our claims as mentioned earlier.
You wouldn't worry more about having 8 tabs horizontally across the top, their German translations making the last two or three tabs scroll horizotnally or jump down the next row? I don't think i18n is really a good justification for your stance here.
That depends on how dominant this menu is on the page. To me, a global navigation on a site like fpo should be clearly visible, but also easily 'ignorable' when working within a specific application. For example, google.com has 12 Items in its' global menu (7 navigation, 5 other) when logged in, and is localised in many languages, including German (which naturally takes more space).
The Google.com bar you mention is for global naviation between separate Google.com applications, not for navigation within a single application.
Remember that this navigation bar is not meant for global navigation between sites or even between separate applications, as I said before it is for navigation within a single application. I know quite well the arguments against global navigation and I also do not think they apply here as this is not a global navigation bar. To navigation between various Fedora applications and sites it's been proposed to have a customizable, very small bar (~40px tall) at the top or even bottom of the screen to point to other applications very much in the style of the Google.com bar you mentioned.
If the target is a site where the global navigation is a dominant element of the page, then yes, I see your point, and having these tabs horizontally wouldn't be feasible. But if the target is a Fedora themed 'frame' for applications to inherit, with a non-intrusive global navigation, then I think the proposal is a bit off target, and a smaller horizontal global navigation would be a better option. That's my 2 cents.
I think you've made an incorrect assumption about how the navigation bar is meant to be used. It's not global navigation, as I mentioned earlier in the thread it's for various areas within a single application. There is no global naviation in the mockups I've posted.
Re your 2 cents, you seem extremely interested in this. Would you mind making some mockups and designs as alternative proposals? I think that might be a lot more helpful than a long mailing list thread. I've spent the past month or so making mine. Can you invest that kind of time into this project? Because we are always looking for new websites team contributors. Our meetings are every Monday evening Eastern time, depending on the week 4 pm ET (next week) or 6 PM et (week after... it alternates)
I am happy that we are having discussions about the design on the list but at the same time I have seen time and time again discussions like this to put a destructive stop to a project making forward progress, and I would prefer to see this project get to the first major milestone and improve it from that point based on actual user feedback rather than just talk about design decisions that were made two months ago because I think that's a better way to make sure that this project doesn't get abandoned.
~m
On Wednesday 20 August 2008 22:33:02 Máirín Duffy wrote:
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
Overwhelming the user is my main concern, yes. Using the extra 200 px for an application-based menu/toolbox/help-view, rather than cramming it in the remaining 80%, would be much more favorable than 'wasting' it on a sub-optimal global navigation.
You know, this all sounds well and good, but means absolutely nothing without user feedback and testing of the specific designs we are discussing. Of which we have nothing to back either of our claims as mentioned earlier.
You wouldn't worry more about having 8 tabs horizontally across the top, their German translations making the last two or three tabs scroll horizotnally or jump down the next row? I don't think i18n is really a good justification for your stance here.
That depends on how dominant this menu is on the page. To me, a global navigation on a site like fpo should be clearly visible, but also easily 'ignorable' when working within a specific application. For example, google.com has 12 Items in its' global menu (7 navigation, 5 other) when logged in, and is localised in many languages, including German (which naturally takes more space).
The Google.com bar you mention is for global naviation between separate Google.com applications, not for navigation within a single application.
Remember that this navigation bar is not meant for global navigation between sites or even between separate applications, as I said before it is for navigation within a single application. I know quite well the arguments against global navigation and I also do not think they apply here as this is not a global navigation bar. To navigation between various Fedora applications and sites it's been proposed to have a customizable, very small bar (~40px tall) at the top or even bottom of the screen to point to other applications very much in the style of the Google.com bar you mentioned.
That makes more sense now. From the discussion, I had in my head that the left-navigation is the one to navigate between various applications (FAS,L10N,planet etc..), and the top tabs for the individual application (similar to how it is on many existing fpo sites). And that was the basis of my comments.
If the target is a site where the global navigation is a dominant element of the page, then yes, I see your point, and having these tabs horizontally wouldn't be feasible. But if the target is a Fedora themed 'frame' for applications to inherit, with a non-intrusive global navigation, then I think the proposal is a bit off target, and a smaller horizontal global navigation would be a better option. That's my 2 cents.
I think you've made an incorrect assumption about how the navigation bar is meant to be used. It's not global navigation, as I mentioned earlier in the thread it's for various areas within a single application. There is no global naviation in the mockups I've posted.
That makes sense now that you say it.
Re your 2 cents, you seem extremely interested in this.
I was simply commenting on an issue that annoys me we the current websites (e.g. translate.fpo), and from the mockup it seemed that the issue was still there, so I thought spending 1 minute submitting a friendly report in that direction would be useful. Now that you say there is a global navigation bar planned as well, your design makes perfect sense, and is indeed a very good one.
Would you mind making some mockups and designs as alternative proposals? I think that might be a lot more helpful than a long mailing list thread. I've spent the past month or so making mine. Can you invest that kind of time into this project? Because we are always looking for new websites team contributors. Our meetings are every Monday evening Eastern time, depending on the week 4 pm ET (next week) or 6 PM et (week after... it alternates)
I am happy that we are having discussions about the design on the list but at the same time I have seen time and time again discussions like this to put a destructive stop to a project making forward progress, and I would prefer to see this project get to the first major milestone and improve it from that point based on actual user feedback rather than just talk about design decisions that were made two months ago because I think that's a better way to make sure that this project doesn't get abandoned.
No, I will not make a mockup, because mine would look like a site from the nineties at best. I am perfectly happy with your proposal now that it is in the context of another 'global navigation' on top/bottom, and would really like to commend the great work and effort being done on this. It will be great to have a design like this for infrastructure apps :)
/me puts in his todo list to dig into the archives to search for the discussion on global navigation :)
cheers, asgeir
Asgeir Frimannsson wrote:
That makes more sense now. From the discussion, I had in my head that the left-navigation is the one to navigate between various applications (FAS,L10N,planet etc..), and the top tabs for the individual application (similar to how it is on many existing fpo sites). And that was the basis of my comments.
No, although I could see how it could be confusing in that way. The particular mockup I've been working on is for the My Fedora application. So the tabs on the left are meant for the different areas of that app. Apps like Koji and Bodhi would use that left nav for the various areas of those apps respectively.
The point that might have been confusing is that the CSS/template is meant to be used for each app individually, not to link all the apps together in one frame! :)
I was simply commenting on an issue that annoys me we the current websites (e.g. translate.fpo), and from the mockup it seemed that the issue was still there, so I thought spending 1 minute submitting a friendly report in that direction would be useful. Now that you say there is a global navigation bar planned as well, your design makes perfect sense, and is indeed a very good one.
Phew. Thank you so much for your patience with me and I'm really sorry for any miscommunication on my part.
No, I will not make a mockup, because mine would look like a site from the nineties at best. I am perfectly happy with your proposal now that it is in the context of another 'global navigation' on top/bottom, and would really like to commend the great work and effort being done on this. It will be great to have a design like this for infrastructure apps :)
That's very nice of you to say, thanks again :)
/me puts in his todo list to dig into the archives to search for the discussion on global navigation :)
Most recently I know someone posted a mockup of the global nav bar on my blog, http://mihmo.livejournal.com/58834.html?thread=296914#t296914
(But it doesn't look like his mockup is up anymore. )
But having a thin navigation bar at the top of fpo sites is something I remember discussing at Boston FUDCon two years ago. After a cursory search I haven't been able to find the thread but it was a long while ago. :( There were several versions of mockups floating around too. When we did the original redesign of fedoraproject.org, the intent was that on fedoraproject.org the bar would be the way it is now, thin with no content, and then other fpo related web properties could have a global nav like the google.com one you mentioned, and potentially with a global search.
I think maybe some of these topics are worth bringing up on the list in more detail so I'm hoping to do so in the coming week. I've recently had a lot more time to work on Fedora websites along with my teammate Eve so we do need to do a nice writeup of the work we've been doing with respect to the My Fedora project and also discuss some of our ideas/goal openly here.
Thanks again for your feedback and patience with me :)
~m
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org