New Meta-FAQ site prototypes
Steuard Jensen
will make it to the outside world, and since I'll be out of town for the
next couple of weeks I'd ask that you CC me by email on any particularly
important replies.]
As I've mentioned in an earlier thread, I have been working on an update
to my Meta-FAQ site for the past week or so. That's partly because the
site design was in desperate need of a visual update: it was
intentionally pretty low tech even when I first created it; today it
just looks like an abandoned relic of Web 1.0. But the immediate
inspiration for the update was to draw a bit more attention to the
newsgroups, as part of a broader effort to increase our web presence and
hopefully draw in some new blood.
I'm still very, very far from having the whole site reworked, but a lot
of the basics are done. I'd very much welcome any comments that you
have on the revised look, so I've put a couple of sample pages online:
http://tolkien.slimy.com/new/
http://tolkien.slimy.com/new/faq/Creatures.html
Be warned that almost none of the links to other pages on my site work
yet: only those two pages (and the supporting style sheets) actually
exist. External links ought to work, though, including the two search
engines on the side. I'm particularly eager to hear if you notice any
usability issues or run into any blatant browser bugs. (Bonus points
for anyone who can explain why the title/header of each page is
invisible in MSIE 5.5 and below.) Those of you using Firefox (or other
Mozilla browsers) or recent versions of Safari or Chrome (or other
Webkit browsers) will get a slightly more attractive layout (with curved
box corners), but I hope the new design is okay for pretty much
everyone. If anything is hard to read or confusing, let me know!
For easy comparison, here are links to the corresponding two pages on
the current Meta-FAQ site:
http://tolkien.slimy.com/
http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Creatures.html
Comparing the two, I suspect that the new design will do wonders to
improve the site's credibility with the average modern web user. And
hopefully I'll end up bringing a bit more attention to the newsgroups
while I'm at it.
Steuard Jensen
P.S. As noted above, I'll be out of town for close to two weeks. I
should have occasional email access, but I doubt that I'll have any
access to the newsgroups unless I use Google Groups. If you have
comments that you want to make sure I see, send me a copy by email.
Tamf Moo
> http://tolkien.slimy.com/faq/Creatures.html
ooh, shiny!
> Comparing the two, I suspect that the new design will do wonders to
> improve the site's credibility with the average modern web user. And
hoommm... is that supposed to be a ninsult?
> hopefully I'll end up bringing a bit more attention to the newsgroups
> while I'm at it.
the google searchbox is a brilliant idea. however, when searching for
"hobbits", i got results from several other newsgroups as well (and no,
i did knot take out the "group:tolkien"). i'm not familiar with google
newsgroup search... does anyone know if it'll be easy to set up a search
of *only* the tolkien newsgroups? or is it not worthwhile?
--
tamf
see ei ole minu kohuke.
Zorag
> I'd very much welcome any comments that you
> have on the revised look, so I've put a couple of sample pages online:
>
> http://tolkien.slimy.com/new/
It looks nice, although I think the section with Google search boxes
and newsgroup info looks a little weird hanging half-way down the
right margin. I'd probably stick it under the menu on the left
margin.
I think most web pages these days do not use serif fonts. I don't
know if there is a consensus right or wrong about font choices, but,
if you are trying to look more modern, I think your font is giving you
an old-fashioned look.
I also find that scrolling feels a little slower and more jumpy on the
new pages than the old pages. But that may just be my machine, or my
mind.
My design sense isn't always so good, so this advice may not even be
worth two cents....
Zorag
Steuard Jensen
house. Good times, good times.]
In message
<<c65c42c6-1f8a-4f8c...@j20g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>>,
Zorag <mr.z...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 17, Steuard Jensen wrote:
>> I'd very much welcome any comments that you
>> have on the revised look, so I've put a couple of sample pages online:
>>
>> http://tolkien.slimy.com/new/
> It looks nice, although I think the section with Google search boxes
> and newsgroup info looks a little weird hanging half-way down the
> right margin. I'd probably stick it under the menu on the left
> margin.
Hmm. On a practical level, some of the space under the left-hand menu
is reserved for the pop-up information that appears when you put your
mouse over the menu links. Also, in modern browsers (such as Firefox,
Safari, Opera, or IE 7 and higher) the content in both sidebars has
"fixed" position and doesn't scroll with the page, so there's really
not a lot of vertical space available on either side.
As for my overall philosophy in going with this general layout, I had
a few goals in mind. The biggest one was to make it easy to navigate
and use the site from any page, which led me to include a menu and
search form outside the main content area. Another major goal was to
increase the visibility of the newsgroups on the site, so putting a
search form and some links for the groups outside of main content
seemed reasonable, too.
Another consideration, though, was that it's hard to read text when
the columns are too wide. Reducing the main content area's width
seemed like a good idea, and if I kept it centered on the page that
meant I'd have margins on both sides. That made it feel quite natural
to put the navigation menu on the left and the search and other common
information on the right. (Three column layouts seem to be pretty
common these days, too.) Because the menu on the left has to start
under the site image, I opted to start the reference information on
the right at the same height. Apart from the image, I thought it
looked fairly symmetrical. But I can see where you're coming from as
well. Anyone else have thoughts?
> I think most web pages these days do not use serif fonts. I don't
> know if there is a consensus right or wrong about font choices, but,
> if you are trying to look more modern, I think your font is giving you
> an old-fashioned look.
Yeah, I've been leaving a decision on fonts until the end of the
process. I've been leaning toward a serif font because they feel more
"bookish" to me, but I'm open to other suggestions. It might not hurt
to be a /little/ old-fashioned. :) But perhaps sans serif is the way
to go.
> I also find that scrolling feels a little slower and more jumpy on the
> new pages than the old pages. But that may just be my machine, or my
> mind.
Interesting. The old pages were /really/ basic, so I can certainly
imagine that they'd render faster. But I didn't think the new design
was /that/ much more processor-intensive. What browser and OS are you
using?
> My design sense isn't always so good, so this advice may not even be
> worth two cents....
Design has never really been my thing, either, so I'm happy to hear
whatever opinions are out there. Thanks!
Steuard Jensen
Steuard Jensen
> ooh, shiny!
:)
>> Comparing the two, I suspect that the new design will do wonders to
>> improve the site's credibility with the average modern web user. And
> hoommm... is that supposed to be a ninsult?
Not at all: naturally, all of us here are well /above/ average. :)
>> hopefully I'll end up bringing a bit more attention to the
>> newsgroups while I'm at it.
> the google searchbox is a brilliant idea. however, when searching for
> "hobbits", i got results from several other newsgroups as well
At least some of the time that I've noticed such things, I've found
that the message was at least cross-posted to r.a.b.t or a.f.t. I
don't recall whether that was always the case, though (or if maybe a
thread will show up in a search even if only some of its messages were
cross-posted).
In any case, I haven't been able to think of a better way to get
Google Groups search to show what I want. (I've also not come up with
an easy way to avoid showing the "group:*tolkien" in the search field,
but I think I'd have at least a mild preference for concealing it if I
could.)
Thanks for your comments!
Steuard Jensen
Odysseus
Steuard Jensen <ste...@slimy.com> wrote:
<snip>
> Yeah, I've been leaving a decision on fonts until the end of the
> process. I've been leaning toward a serif font because they feel more
> "bookish" to me, but I'm open to other suggestions. It might not hurt
> to be a /little/ old-fashioned. :) But perhaps sans serif is the way
> to go.
I like Georgia: quite 'bookish' (especially the oldstyle figures) but
robust enough to be pretty easy to read on screen, and it coexists
reasonably comfortably with sans-serif heads or captions ... moreover
AFAICT it's been included with most OSs for a few years now.
--
Odysseus
Noel Q. von Schneiffel
>
> I like Georgia: quite 'bookish' (especially the oldstyle figures) but
> robust enough to be pretty easy to read on screen, and it coexists
> reasonably comfortably with sans-serif heads or captions ... moreover
> AFAICT it's been included with most OSs for a few years now.
Wingdings.
Noel
Tamf Moo
> [I'm finally back from being out of town; it looks like I'm buying a
> house. Good times, good times.]
oh, wonderful! have fun moving.
>>> http://tolkien.slimy.com/new/
>> My design sense isn't always so good, so this advice may not even be
>> worth two cents....
>
> Design has never really been my thing, either, so I'm happy to hear
> whatever opinions are out there. Thanks!
well, in general, the current design looks snazzy. however, the logo
needs some attention. first of all, on my screen at least, it's spilling
out from the header background onto the page background. that looks
messy. perhaps moving it to the right would fix that -- or having a
broad left margin for the header as well.
secondly, the ring around the question mark... basically, it's so three-
dimensional, i'm waiting for it to start moving 'round the mark. i don't
think it should be converted into an animated gif, however (that would
be truly evil!). possibly you could separate the ring from the question
mark, or tilt it differently, or something, to make it look different.
finally, since i am in nitpicking mode, i don't think green is the right
colour for odd lines in this scheme. one of the already-used colours, or
a variation of them, might look better.
--
tamf
armchair designer
Tamf Moo
>> the google searchbox is a brilliant idea. however, when searching for
>> "hobbits", i got results from several other newsgroups as well
>
> At least some of the time that I've noticed such things, I've found
> that the message was at least cross-posted to r.a.b.t or a.f.t. I
> don't recall whether that was always the case, though (or if maybe a
> thread will show up in a search even if only some of its messages were
> cross-posted).
well, i got some really old posts with high Tolkien content, such as:
"A Buddhist Reading of Tolkien" on talk.religion.buddhism
<http://groups.google.com/group/talk.religion.buddhism/browse_thread/thread/eeacd32378c14b7e/62ca8d6ba9891d99?q=group:*tolkien#62ca8d6ba9891d99>
and "Tolkien as a children's author" on
alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic/browse_thread/thread/afc3ce17cc562e7e/a5afe5f021af3618?q=group:*tolkien#a5afe5f021af3618>
> In any case, I haven't been able to think of a better way to get
> Google Groups search to show what I want. (I've also not come up with
> an easy way to avoid showing the "group:*tolkien" in the search field,
> but I think I'd have at least a mild preference for concealing it if I
> could.)
there must be a way. it's google! i may poke and prod a bit.
interestingly, gooogle also offers an RSS feed for "its" groups. you can
get to it by clicking on "about this group" on its google presentation
page. (see for instance
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.tolkien/about>). i don't think
this would look good on the FAQ page, but perhaps on a sub page? anyone
with a Tolkien-related blog or web page who's interested in promoting
the newsgroup could also add RSS feeds -- at their own peril, of curse.
TT Arvind
Absolutely. For the Balrog-related questions, if for nothing else.
--
Arvind
Steuard Jensen
On 2009-07-02, Tamf Moo <liddle...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Steuard Jensen wrote:
>>>> http://tolkien.slimy.com/new/
> well, in general, the current design looks snazzy.
Good!
> however, the logo needs some attention. first of all, on my screen
> at least, it's spilling out from the header background onto the page
> background. that looks messy. perhaps moving it to the right would
> fix that -- or having a broad left margin for the header as well.
One challenge is that the header has entirely different heights on
different pages (and also depending on the size of the browser
window): I can't control how big it will be. If I used a "min-height"
declaration (which some Internet Explorer versions would simply ignore
anyway), I wouldn't have any way to nicely center or spread the text
vertically in the available space (or at least, nothing
straightforward that I can think of).
My solution at this point is not to worry about it: the logo is
basically superimposed on the page structure rather than being built
in. This metaphor holds up well when you scroll the page: in recent
browsers, the logo and navigation links stay in place while the header
and body scroll up the screen. I'm willing to consider other options,
but I'm pretty likely to stick with this for at least a little while.
> secondly, the ring around the question mark... basically, it's so three-
> dimensional, i'm waiting for it to start moving 'round the mark.
I could do that, but I'll spare the Tolkien world that silliness. :)
(The file size would get way too big, anyway.)
> possibly you could separate the ring from the question mark, or tilt
> it differently, or something, to make it look different.
I probably don't entirely follow you here. The ring will presumably
always look 3D, considering how I'm generating the image (and
considering that I want it to look like an actual ring). To combine
that with a question mark in an interesting way, I can't think of many
other options than "looping around it". I've tweaked with the angles
a bit over time; the challenge is always to arrange things so that
both the ring and the question mark are recognizable.
In any case, given the basic design of the logo, I may be stuck with a
bit of the effect that's bugging you. Alas.
> finally, since i am in nitpicking mode, i don't think green is the
> right colour for odd lines in this scheme. one of the already-used
> colours, or a variation of them, might look better.
Good call. I made this change a while ago: I've replaced the green
with a slightly bluish grey, which seems to look a lot more in keeping
with the rest of the page.
Thanks!
Steuard Jensen
Zorag
> Zorag <mr.zo...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip>
> > I also find that scrolling feels a little slower and more jumpy on the
> > new pages than the old pages. But that may just be my machine, or my
> > mind.
>
> Interesting. The old pages were /really/ basic, so I can certainly
> imagine that they'd render faster. But I didn't think the new design
> was /that/ much more processor-intensive. What browser and OS are you
> using?
Windows XP, Firefox 3.5, kind of old computer, but not too old, and
generally well-behaved.
More specifically, if I am on, say, the creatures.html page and start
scrolling down using the down arrow, it slows down significantly after
getting about half way through question 1. Same thing happens on the
newer version you just posted a few days ago. It's weird, especially
because the page doesn't look very complicated. But not really a big
problem.
Zorag
Tamf Moo
> My solution at this point is not to worry about it: the logo is
that's a good one.
>> secondly, the ring around the question mark... basically, it's so three-
>> dimensional, i'm waiting for it to start moving 'round the mark.
>
> I could do that, but I'll spare the Tolkien world that silliness. :)
you do that. there are others who will not. be vewwy afwaid...
>> possibly you could separate the ring from the question mark, or tilt
>> it differently, or something, to make it look different.
>
> I probably don't entirely follow you here. The ring will presumably
> always look 3D, considering how I'm generating the image (and
> considering that I want it to look like an actual ring). To combine
> that with a question mark in an interesting way, I can't think of many
> other options than "looping around it". I've tweaked with the angles
> a bit over time; the challenge is always to arrange things so that
> both the ring and the question mark are recognizable.
i was thinking about altering the angle; obviously, you're better
positioned to know whether there are any better ways, or just worse
ones. what i was thinking of (i think) was giving more shape to the
question mark itself, so that, too, looks 3D. make it shine! };8)
the favicon looks good, though, so you don't want to stray too far.