From looking at the site map concepts, I think that everyone seems to
"get" the purpose of the website, and what the Fireworks Project is,
as well as what we're trying to be. That is really awesome. To make
sure we stay in the same boat, I revised the top of the project page
to reflect our content strategy more clearly (I hope):
http://groups.google.com/group/fireworks-project/web/website-project-...
However, I think I may have become a little too verbose with site map
concepts #2 and #4. Looking back through some material, I realised
that David's idea for outlining a site map is just to get an idea for
the pages that we may need. I think we have done that, so the
question now is how to create the content objectives for each of the
pages.
I like Martin's paired down site map (concept #5), but It might help
if you elaborate a little on your ideas about why you think it would
work better?
Nice work... I'm getting excited to see how the content comes to life.
Yeah nice work so far.
Ok, we need to decide an initial sitemap.
We can go back later and change it, if needed.
But we have to start somewhere, and I think concept #4 is the best for
now.
#5 is not bad, but there's not a lot of space to explain our ideas &
vision, I think.
That's a very good start. I just cleaned the page so we can work
easier.
I revised the page and added some sub pages (see Organization).
We can add the details as well.
I like what is coming along, but I am a bit concerned with naming the
page 'Organization'. In the UK, New Zealand and Australia and a lot of
other countries we would spell it with an 's' instead of 'z'. Could we
not just call it 'About'?
I agree Martin... That's a good point. And besides the spelling of
'organization', there is going to be a content/navigational issue with
it as well. Most people expect an 'about' page to contain that
content.
On May 20, 4:39 pm, Martin Hipp <martin.h...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like what is coming along, but I am a bit concerned with naming the
> page 'Organization'. In the UK, New Zealand and Australia and a lot of
> other countries we would spell it with an 's' instead of 'z'. Could we
> not just call it 'About'?
I added some more explanation and examples to the site map.
The next step is to create some wireframes. I think the best way to
do this is to have myself, David, and Martin each build a wire frame
independently of one another. We'll set up a "launch" date to
announce all the wireframes and then begin a discussion about what we
like best of each one and what we want to incorporate into the final
wireframe.
Martin and I have already created wireframes, but I'm planning on
updating mine to reflect the content strategy and site map outline.
Martin can take another wack at it, or let his wireframe stand as it
is... His choice.
So what is a good launch date to have the wireframe's done? I'm
thinking Mon June 8th.
On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Kris Walker <kixxa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I added some more explanation and examples to the site map.
> The next step is to create some wireframes. I think the best way to > do this is to have myself, David, and Martin each build a wire frame > independently of one another. We'll set up a "launch" date to > announce all the wireframes and then begin a discussion about what we > like best of each one and what we want to incorporate into the final > wireframe.
> Martin and I have already created wireframes, but I'm planning on > updating mine to reflect the content strategy and site map outline. > Martin can take another wack at it, or let his wireframe stand as it > is... His choice.
> So what is a good launch date to have the wireframe's done? I'm > thinking Mon June 8th.
This way, we'll see different, independent, interpretations of the
site map. We'll be able to critique each design, and decide which
interpretation we like best. That is not to say that some elements of
other designs may enhance the design we choose, and we cannot rule out
the possibility of integrating elements from multiple designs.
However, I am a strong believer that perfection is reached, not when
there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
away.
I stand by the submission date of June 8th, if David or Martin would
like more time, please post here.
> This way, we'll see different, independent, interpretations of the
> site map. We'll be able to critique each design, and decide which
> interpretation we like best. That is not to say that some elements of
> other designs may enhance the design we choose, and we cannot rule out
> the possibility of integrating elements from multiple designs.
> However, I am a strong believer that perfection is reached, not when
> there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take
> away.
> I stand by the submission date of June 8th, if David or Martin would
> like more time, please post here.
You'll notice that everything is in shades of grey. Since we are
focused on site navigation and possible usability issues in this phase
of design, I did not want colour selections to get in the way of that
process. You'll also notice a lot of empty space on the right side of
the home page, which will contain a graphic that I didn't bother
putting in the wire frame.
I would especially like some comments about the content selection tabs
on the left side ('everyone', 'ux design', 'developers'). Our site
targets several audiences, and so it presents unique challenges to our
content strategy and navigation. Having several sites for each
audience is confusing. On the other hand developers become annoyed at
digging through content in layman's terms for information that is
relevant to them, while technical information that developers want to
see is confusing to users. The content switching tabs on the left
side are my solution to this problem.
David and Martin have been busy with school and projects, so I'm going
to be doing the wire frames to keep things moving.
The blog platform makes a much better place to discuss this, since I
can put pictures in with the posts, and everyone else can comment on
it. Sorry to redirect everyone to a different location, but it makes
this much easier for the remainder of the web design project.
The next step is to gather sketches of graphical design ideas. The
goal is quantity over quality at this point. We'll refine the design
after flushing out our ideas. Sketches should be simple, non-
functional mockups that effectively communicate an idea. It should
take less than an hour to create a sketch.
Upload your sketches to the files directory on this Google group, and
then post to this discussion thread with a link to the file and an
explanation of the idea that your sketch communicates.
1 week should be long enough to submit and discuss the sketches, so
Monday, June 22 will be the last day for submissions.
The black box containing the logo and the tagline in the upper left
corner looks terrible, but I still don't have any good ideas for the
background of the logo. This box also serves as the link back to the
home landing page.
The orienting the navigation buttons as shaded arrows is meant to help
guide a new visitor through the site while still remaining useful to
people who frequent the site.
In addition, each page has a "state" flag, which is the orange flag on
the left. This is a strong indication to the user of where they are,
and what type of content they can expect on the page.
The main purpose of this mockup was to illustrate the arrow navigation
buttons and the page state flag.
Thoughts on these features from a usability and design perspective
would be greatly appreciated.
