Re: Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design

Since this design is "drop-in" ready requiring only minor changes,
perhaps we should resurrect the idea of a vote (maybe on Advocacy). Any
thoughts on that?

Gavin

Dave Page wrote:

>
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>[mailto:pgsql-www-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org] On Behalf Of Robert Treat
>>Sent: 12 November 2004 15:08
>>To: Dave Page
>>Cc: Omar Kilani; pgsql-www(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design
>>
>>please note I am dropping -advocacy from this discussion
>>since I need some focus on www work
>>
>>
>
>Good call.
>
>
>
>>One problem I have with Lukasz design is that some of the
>>subsection really scream out for second level navigation.
>>
>>In Lukasz design, we end up re-propogating the right nav bar
>>on every page which I think is bad because it uses a lot of
>>screen real estate while adding little/no substance to the
>>secondary pages. For example, do we really need a link to
>>external community sites on every page?
>>
>>In something like the "Overview" section, I would like to add
>>in content like case studies, gui tools, advantages, and
>>other sections from advocacy and techdocs websites, but this
>>mean putting all of these subsections on the main "overview"
>>page, creating a long scrolling lists that have to be gone
>>through to find content. I think it is easier for people to
>>scroll short lists of subcategories in a left hand nav like
>>in the "About" section of the tinysofa design.
>>
>>These underlying structural issues need to be addressed
>>regardless of what design we use.
>>
>>
>
>Yes, agreed.
>
>
>
>>>2) What happens if xyz web design comes and offers us another great
>>>design next week. Do we start again? Where/when do we draw
>>>
>>>
>>the line?
>>
>>
>>>If I'm honest, based on our agreement to use Lukasz' design I think
>>>that line should be drawn already.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>If we agree that there are some underlying structural issues,
>>then either that needs to be addressed in the current design,
>>or we need to swap. I understand that we don't want to just
>>toss Lukasz' work out the window, but if we were developing
>>an application and we found flaws in some piece of it, and
>>someone else coded up an alternative implementation, I don't
>>think we would discount the new idea simply on the grounds
>>that we already have an existing implementation.
>>
>>
>
>Hmm, I don't think it's quite the same as a code issue though, as it's a
>lot more subjective. I see what you mean though.
>
>
>
>>(In
>>fairness, the new design also has some structural issues,
>>like fixed width, that would also have to be addressed before
>>we could use it)
>>
>>
>
>Also agreed.
>
>I should add that I do actually quite like this design, at least as much
>as Lukasz'.
>
>Regards, Dave
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
> (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>
>