Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
-- The chevron icons do nothing for me. They aren't indicative of the section they call out and there are only three on the page. If they differed for each section, they might provide value, or if they were more visually useful, they might be better. As suggestions for the latter, you could use drop caps in the headings instead of icons, per se, or you could use a partial box:
| Welcome to Boost.org! +-----------
The partial box would be sized to be just a portion of the width of the headings (and the same width for all of them).
They are indicative of a section, nothing else. They call attention to a section without overloading the text itself, as the text is already bolder. It's good that there are only three, or two, as otherwise they would loose their indication power, they stand out more the fewer there are. As pointed out in the early designs making such indicators more visually meaningful was described as distractions from the text. Doing the design you suggests would clash with the rest of the design. The one alternative would be to use the same design element as that of the menu box and the search box on the header like:
I suggested two alternatives. Make each icon one different so they visually suggest the section. You're clearly rejecting that.
No I wasn't rejecting it. What I said is that other people rejected it. That is the design I started out with, of having a "representative" icon for the sections. Icons, as opposed to the current indicators, didn't go over well for most people.
My other suggestion was to make them more visually useful. Right now, they are big black blotches that are a distraction. They overwhelm the page and the heading they adorn. The partial box design I suggested would be less stark.
stark: 1 a : rigid in or as if in death b : rigidly conforming (as to a pattern or doctrine) : ABSOLUTE <stark discipline> 2 archaic : STRONG, ROBUST 3 : UTTER, SHEER <stark nonsense> 4 a : BARREN, DESOLATE b (1) : having few or no ornaments : BARE <a stark white room> (2) : HARSH, BLUNT <the stark realities of death> 5 : sharply delineated <a stark contrast> I think you are using #5 ?? I disagree.. Making the section heading less "stark" just muddles the structure of the front page.
I might also point out that the text doesn't have to be bold. The combination of the partial box and smaller or less bold text can be suitably strong in concert.
No it doesn't have to be bold.. But it would be inconsistent with the rest of the page.
Welcome to Boost.org! ---------------------- | | The Boost web site... emphasis is on libraries...
But that would dilute the meaning of those box lines away from the navigation boxes they currently delineate.
Too busy.
Really? How is it more busy than your box idea?
I don't think there's any argument as to what the most frequently used links are. They are all the links that are currently on the left navigation menu and in the search box. If something is not popular enough it will never get a place on the navigation menu. So duplicating some of those someplace else in the page would only help to clutter the page and confuse visitors.
Sure, those are very common links, but there is a smaller set that could adorn every page, not just the home page.
I think you misunderstood what I said, probably be cause we both implied different things :-) The _front_ page doesn't need the added clutter of duplicate links, nothing to say of making it fail accessibility validation. Yes, interior pages would benefit from a navigation bar, possibly at the top, just like most of them already have. But that is a different discussion. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq