Re: Alternate PostgreSQL.org Design

> -----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