Thread: Re: New logo PostreSQL
> > > www.php.net ... has a 'modern' feel to it > > You know what I just realized...does anyone realize how impossible it is > to *find* the mSQL web site? I just went through Altavista, and have > travel'd through the ftp site, the FAQ and a few other sites, and I > *still* can't find it...? > mSQL or MySQL? I think mSQL is dead. MySQL is at http://www.tcx.se. http://www.gnu.org is terrible. MySQL's site is pretty bland. http://www.perl.org is not fancy enough, and not enough color. http://www.php.net is ok, but a little dark and cluttered. http://www.gimp.org is nice. Clean design, not cluttered. Nice use of color. Similar to our current one, but jazzed up. The little gimp guys eyes move every few seconds. Interesting. I wonder if we could do some kind of SQL select running every few seconds with pgaccess displayed. http://www.freebsd.org is nice. http://www.cs.virginia.edu/~patrick/cqcam is much too dark. http://www.python.org is too cluttered on the top. http://www.realaudio.com is a mess. Looks like a shopping mall. I can never figure that site out. http://www.unifix-online.com is not bad, but needs more much color. http://www.wilsontechnology.com/ is the page I did, which needs color and more graphics. http://www.csmonitor.com/ is nice, but it doesn't spread across the window. http://www.oppenheimerfunds.com was interesting. Not cluttered. http://www.pncbank.com/ is quite nice. The center is cluttered, but the margins, colors, and layout are nice. http://www.suburban-cable.com/ is a thought item. They put the menu items on a remote control. Perhaps we could do an SQL table, and have that contain the menu items. We could do it with the left margin, so it would be SELECT item FROM menu ----------- support mailing lists documentation ---------- (3 rows) Kind of nifty for a left margin, if it could be done so it was not too fancy and did not detract from the rest of the page. I could do up a sample picture using tcl if that would help. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
http://www.parc.xerox.com simple look, but very dynamic action (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) http://www.netbsd.org nice and clean. Cute logo :) http://www.mulberrytech.com green and white (with a bit of blue) suprisingly nice look http://www.w3.org nice clean logo and look. Too many links on page http://www.javasoft.com nice look. Currently has a dumb truck graphic... http://www.plumbdesign.com/thesaurus ok, not for us. But a really cool site. (wait for the applet to download and then trythe demo) http://www.research.digital.com/SRC/modula-3/html/ too wordy, but I happen to like simple logos > http://www.freebsd.org is nice. Nice, but the left-hand margin is too heavy. > http://www.gimp.org Nice site. Given who they are, forgive them for a busy graphic. - Tom
On Sat, 9 Jan 1999, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote: > http://www.parc.xerox.com > simple look, but very dynamic action > (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) Yes yes yes...I want that *grin* There are a few sites out there right now that do that, actually, I just don't recall URLs... > > http://www.gimp.org > Nice site. Given who they are, forgive them for a busy graphic. I like this one too...and as for the graphic, whatever happened to that direction *we* were working towards with the tables and whatnot? Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
On 09-Jan-99 Thomas G. Lockhart wrote: >> http://www.freebsd.org is nice. > Nice, but the left-hand margin is too heavy. > Take a look at the old one http://www.freebsd.org/~meganm I like her work better than the current freebsd page. Also look at some of her other stuff: http://www.asis.com/~meganm/ Some good ideas. Vince. -- ========================================================================== Vince Vielhaber -- KA8CSH email: vev@michvhf.com flame-mail: /dev/null # include <std/disclaimers.h> TEAM-OS2 Online Searchable Campground Listings http://www.camping-usa.com "There is no outfit less entitledto lecture me about bloat than the federal government" -- Tony Snow ==========================================================================
> http://www.parc.xerox.com > simple look, but very dynamic action > (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) I didn't like this. Too much white space, did not spread across page. The mouse thing was too distracting for me. > > http://www.netbsd.org > nice and clean. Cute logo :) I didn't like this. Not enough color, too much stuff on the page. > > http://www.mulberrytech.com > green and white (with a bit of blue) suprisingly nice look Nice look. > > http://www.w3.org > nice clean logo and look. Too many links on page Not sure. Didn't grab me. > > http://www.javasoft.com > nice look. Currently has a dumb truck graphic... Too much stuff/scroll. No spread. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
At 3:54 PM -0800 1/12/99, Bruce Momjian wrote: >> http://www.parc.xerox.com >> simple look, but very dynamic action >> (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) > >I didn't like this. Too much white space, did not spread across page. >The mouse thing was too distracting for me. Dynamic action is an interesting concept, but nothing useful was done with it. The stuff on the right should have just been deleted or else replaced with a simple logo. Also it takes too long to load. (JPL has dual T3's. It ain't my modem.) > >> >> http://www.netbsd.org >> nice and clean. Cute logo :) > >I didn't like this. Not enough color, too much stuff on the page. I kind of like the design, but I don't think the headings and organization are clear/informative enough. I have a hard time finding what I want and *I* *use* *NetBSD*. > >> >> http://www.mulberrytech.com >> green and white (with a bit of blue) suprisingly nice look > >Nice look. Agree. There may be about as much real stuff as the other sites have, but it doesn't look busy or cluttered at all. The simple color scheme makes it easier on the eyes than most web sites. Very elegant! > >> >> http://www.w3.org >> nice clean logo and look. Too many links on page > >Not sure. Didn't grab me. Not as good as Mulberrytech, but not bad. Probably too many links, but maybe they could have been grouped somehow? > >> >> http://www.javasoft.com >> nice look. Currently has a dumb truck graphic... > >Too much stuff/scroll. No spread. > Takes *way* too long to load. Only barely avoids overusing color in places. This one looks to me like the designer was told to use every trick in the book once on the page. He knew it was a bad idea and did the best he could, but the result still lacks unity. Seriously, I suspect this page of being designed by committee. In summary: let's not let our (obvious) interest in the technology obscure the real information we are trying to communicate. A simple design without any gaffes will avoid distracting from that information. Maybe it won't get anyone a promotion to head of the art department, but that's not our goal. Book recommendation: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, by Edward R. Tufte. (From memory, hope I got it right.) Signature failed Preliminary Design Review. Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated. h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > http://www.parc.xerox.com > > simple look, but very dynamic action > > (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) > > I didn't like this. Too much white space, did not spread across page. What, exactly, is spread? If you mean 'width' across the page, not having it is, IMHO, a good idea. I like a clean narrow (possibly long) page. I don't know about anybody else, but I like to do other things when I'm browsing the web, and narrow pages give me more screen real estate to do that (it's more intuitive to scroll down than across). Wide pages are a pain on small displays, and waste precious screen space. Just my $0.02 -- Nick Bastin - RBB Systems, Inc. Out hme0, through the Cat5K, Across the ATM backbone, through the firewall, past the provider, hit the router, down the fiber, off another router... Nothing but net.
> Book recommendation: The Visual Display of Quantitative Information, by > Edward R. Tufte. (From memory, hope I got it right.) I just got a flyer in the mail about him and his three books. He is speaking in Philadelphia in February. I don't think I will attend(I am more of a reader), but want to look at his books. The local bookstore has them in stock. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> >> http://www.mulberrytech.com > >> green and white (with a bit of blue) suprisingly nice look > >Nice look. > Agree. There may be about as much real stuff as the other sites have, > but it doesn't look busy or cluttered at all. The simple color scheme > makes it easier on the eyes than most web sites. Very elegant! > >> http://www.w3.org > >> nice clean logo and look. Too many links on page > >Not sure. Didn't grab me. > Not as good as Mulberrytech, but not bad. > >> http://www.javasoft.com > >> nice look. Currently has a dumb truck graphic... > >Too much stuff/scroll. No spread. > Takes *way* too long to load. Only barely avoids overusing color in > places. This one looks to me like the designer was told to use every > trick in the book once on the page. No duh! It's the JavaSoft page, for gosh sakes! What do we expect? :) > In summary: let's not let our (obvious) interest in the technology > obscure the real information we are trying to communicate. A simple > design without any gaffes will avoid distracting from that > information. You're not off the hook that easily. We have already acknowledged that we are design-impaired. And a good book on design won't cure us. So we are trying to survey web sites and propose candidate looks. Got one or a few to suggest which have the right look? TIA - Tom
> Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > http://www.parc.xerox.com > > > simple look, but very dynamic action > > > (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) > > > > I didn't like this. Too much white space, did not spread across page. > > What, exactly, is spread? If you mean 'width' across the page, not > having it is, IMHO, a good idea. I like a clean narrow (possibly long) > page. I don't know about anybody else, but I like to do other things > when I'm browsing the web, and narrow pages give me more screen real > estate to do that (it's more intuitive to scroll down than across). > Wide pages are a pain on small displays, and waste precious screen space. I used fvwm, so I have multiple desktops, and Netscape gets to fill its own at 1000x640. Our current page spreads the text across the browser window. In a narrow browser, it disiplays narrow text. I agree you can't define it to be wide by default, but it should be able to fill the window. You can even define margins of whitespace, to say 10% of the window width. The major problem is that if you go with text that is inside an image/imagemap, you can't just have the text wrap inside the window. There is no way around that unless you can auto-size the image based on the browser size, but that probably is impossible. Any text trapped inside an image is going to look very small in a large browser window because you have to design for the smallest browser window, which probably has a width of ~600 pixels. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> You're not off the hook that easily. We have already acknowledged that > we are design-impaired. And a good book on design won't cure us. So we > are trying to survey web sites and propose candidate looks. Got one or a > few to suggest which have the right look? I must say I am surprised at how many of us like/dislike the same items, and I don't think it is because we are all programmers. Books basically look all the same because there is good design, and bad design. Web pages are too new and the technology changing too quickly for a standard design to become popular, but I think eventually many of those _bad_ web pages will be replace with good ones. In fact, most large companies have terrible web sites, especially the home page for the site. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
> I must say I am surprised at how many of us like/dislike the same items, > and I don't think it is because we are all programmers. Books basically > look all the same because there is good design, and bad design. Web > pages are too new and the technology changing too quickly for a standard > design to become popular, but I think eventually many of those _bad_ web > pages will be replace with good ones. > > In fact, most large companies have terrible web sites, especially the > home page for the site. I will bolster my argument with two examples: In the 1960's, typesetting in a variety of fonts became easier as lithography became more popular than the manual typesetting process. Many publications used very strange layouts as they tried the new possibilities, but eventually returned to good typesetting standards. Same thing happened in the 1960's with the advent of new fabrics and new methods for dying fabrics. Second, everyone has seen the Mac-created documents of the 1980's. The use of many typefaces made the documents look more like ransom notes. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > http://www.parc.xerox.com > > > > simple look, but very dynamic action > > > > (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) > > > > > > I didn't like this. Too much white space, did not spread across page. > > > > What, exactly, is spread? If you mean 'width' across the page, not > > having it is, IMHO, a good idea. I like a clean narrow (possibly long) > > page. I don't know about anybody else, but I like to do other things > > when I'm browsing the web, and narrow pages give me more screen real > > estate to do that (it's more intuitive to scroll down than across). > > Wide pages are a pain on small displays, and waste precious screen space. > > I used fvwm, so I have multiple desktops, and Netscape gets to fill its I use a mac, so maybe that's my problem.. ;-) Actually, it doesn't make any difference if I want to be able to see what I'm working on and the browser at the same time (they'd have to be on the same desktop), but I see your point. > own at 1000x640. Our current page spreads the text across the browser > window. In a narrow browser, it disiplays narrow text. I agree you > can't define it to be wide by default, but it should be able to fill the > window. You can even define margins of whitespace, to say 10% of the > window width. Ok, we're on the same page here, I just wasn't sure what you meant by spread... -- Nick Bastin - RBB Systems, Inc. Out hme0, through the Cat5K, Across the ATM backbone, through the firewall, past the provider, hit the router, down the fiber, off another router... Nothing but net.
I hate to come back to same thing over again, but I still think that www.php.net is a nice example of 'spreadability', as well as color and graphics...its just got a nice "feel" to it. I like the fact that the buttons let you *know* that you are over top of it...and the use of javascript for doing the submenus is attractive (see the search feature)... The gimp page, also, does a nice job of making buttons that 'turn' when you move over top of them... I *really* like the dynamic/interactive sense to them, vs the same old dry, "don't do anything until the user clicks" sort of pages... My 2bits :) On Tue, 12 Jan 1999, Nick Bastin wrote: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > > > > > > > http://www.parc.xerox.com > > > > > simple look, but very dynamic action > > > > > (scrappy, run your mouse across the menus) > > > > > > > > I didn't like this. Too much white space, did not spread across page. > > > > > > What, exactly, is spread? If you mean 'width' across the page, not > > > having it is, IMHO, a good idea. I like a clean narrow (possibly long) > > > page. I don't know about anybody else, but I like to do other things > > > when I'm browsing the web, and narrow pages give me more screen real > > > estate to do that (it's more intuitive to scroll down than across). > > > Wide pages are a pain on small displays, and waste precious screen space. > > > > I used fvwm, so I have multiple desktops, and Netscape gets to fill its > > I use a mac, so maybe that's my problem.. ;-) Actually, it doesn't make > any difference if I want to be able to see what I'm working on and the > browser at the same time (they'd have to be on the same desktop), but I > see your point. > > > own at 1000x640. Our current page spreads the text across the browser > > window. In a narrow browser, it disiplays narrow text. I agree you > > can't define it to be wide by default, but it should be able to fill the > > window. You can even define margins of whitespace, to say 10% of the > > window width. > > Ok, we're on the same page here, I just wasn't sure what you meant by spread... > > -- > Nick Bastin - RBB Systems, Inc. > Out hme0, through the Cat5K, Across the ATM backbone, through the > firewall, past the provider, hit the router, down the fiber, off another > router... Nothing but net. > Marc G. Fournier Systems Administrator @ hub.org primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
> I hate to come back to same thing over again, but I still think that
> www.php.net is a nice example of 'spreadability', as well as color and
> graphics...its just got a nice "feel" to it.
At least on my monitor, the site seems too dark (all imho of course).
The blue is dark and the black lettering across the top does not stand
out. It does spread nicely, but I'm not fond of the 3-sided wrap-around
border; if it was just on two sides (at the left and top?) I might be
happier with it. As it is, it seems to shrink the page. Again, that may
just be a color issue...
> I like the fact that the buttons let you *know* that you are over top
> of it...and the use of javascript for doing the submenus is attractive
> (see the search feature)...
Yes, the button action is nice, and the page loads reasonably quickly
(though shows nothing on my system until completely loaded). How is it
that kind of code to maintain?
- Tom
On Wed, 13 Jan 1999, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote:
> > I hate to come back to same thing over again, but I still think that
> > www.php.net is a nice example of 'spreadability', as well as color and
> > graphics...its just got a nice "feel" to it.
>
> At least on my monitor, the site seems too dark (all imho of course).
> The blue is dark and the black lettering across the top does not stand
> out. It does spread nicely, but I'm not fond of the 3-sided wrap-around
> border; if it was just on two sides (at the left and top?) I might be
> happier with it. As it is, it seems to shrink the page. Again, that may
> just be a color issue...
Hey, I don't want to copy the site...:) I want something
original...something that is distinctly us. I just like the way that the
php site...flows.
> > I like the fact that the buttons let you *know* that you are over top
> > of it...and the use of javascript for doing the submenus is attractive
> > (see the search feature)...
>
> Yes, the button action is nice, and the page loads reasonably quickly
> (though shows nothing on my system until completely loaded). How is it
> that kind of code to maintain?
I believe its all javascript, but could be wrong...
Marc G. Fournier
Systems Administrator @ hub.org
primary: scrappy@hub.org secondary: scrappy@{freebsd|postgresql}.org
The Hermit Hacker wrote: > > I hate to come back to same thing over again, but I still think that > www.php.net is a nice example of 'spreadability', as well as color and > graphics...its just got a nice "feel" to it. I like the PHP page as well, mostly because of the feeling that it's all 'contained'...much like (gasp) www.msnbc.com (at least it used to be that way) and www.ibm.com, with a definite top and bottom to the page. Pages deeper in the site tend to be longer, because the content dictates it, but I think you'll find that users like a nice, compact design. > I like the fact that the buttons let you *know* that you are over top of > it...and the use of javascript for doing the submenus is attractive (see > the search feature)... I like the PHP submenu for search as well...very clean, and quick. However, I can't be in support of those features if they come at the expense of load time. The PHP site loads very quickly, mostly because the images are solid colors, and therefore, very small. Too many JS rollovers, or animated GIFs, can make your page take long enough to load that the viewer might just decide that mysql's page loads faster... A trick to this of course is to use Adobe's ImageReady, or a similar app (sorry, but GIMP doesn't quite have the flexibility in this category...) to alter/compress the graphics for speedy presentation on the web, without losing any quality. By just taking all of the images through ImageReady and tinkering with them, we (corporate webmaster and I) were able to cut average load time on the corporate web site in half. Just a thought... -- Nick Bastin - RBB Systems, Inc. Out hme0, through the Cat5K, Across the ATM backbone, through the firewall, past the provider, hit the router, down the fiber, off another router... Nothing but net.
"Thomas G. Lockhart" wrote: > At least on my monitor, the site seems too dark (all imho of course). > The blue is dark and the black lettering across the top does not stand > out. It does spread nicely, but I'm not fond of the 3-sided wrap-around > border; if it was just on two sides (at the left and top?) I might be > happier with it. As it is, it seems to shrink the page. Again, that may > just be a color issue... I'm not sure what the site was originally designed on, but it's very nice looking on a mac, but a little dark on a PC (lighter under X than windows, tho'). This is of course due to the use of different gamma and a slightly different color map on the different platforms, but if you know about it, you can compensate for it (use highly contrasting colors, don't make anything too dark, etc.) > Yes, the button action is nice, and the page loads reasonably quickly > (though shows nothing on my system until completely loaded). How is it > that kind of code to maintain? Geoff Long (corp. webmaster) and I had that image loading problem when we tweaked the graphics for maximum performance on our corporate website. Still not sure why it does it, but I'm looking into it. As far as the code is to maintain, the PHP site doesn't look that complicated, although I've grown accustomed to the convienence and flexibility of Web Objects, so I could be totally wrong.. :-) -- Nick Bastin - RBB Systems, Inc. Out hme0, through the Cat5K, Across the ATM backbone, through the firewall, past the provider, hit the router, down the fiber, off another router... Nothing but net.
"Thomas G. Lockhart" <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> writes: > > I hate to come back to same thing over again, but I still think that > > www.php.net is a nice example of 'spreadability', as well as color and > > graphics...its just got a nice "feel" to it. The PHP site was the first time I saw a really good use of mouseovers and layers. I like it too, although of course there are ways I'd "improve" it. ;-) > At least on my monitor, the site seems too dark (all imho of course). > The blue is dark and the black lettering across the top does not stand > out. It does spread nicely, but I'm not fond of the 3-sided wrap-around > border; if it was just on two sides (at the left and top?) I might be > happier with it. As it is, it seems to shrink the page. Again, that may > just be a color issue... > > > I like the fact that the buttons let you *know* that you are over top > > of it...and the use of javascript for doing the submenus is attractive > > (see the search feature)... There are lots of ways to navigate a multi-tier menu, e.g.: - multiple navbars on the same screen - top menu visible, second level appears when you mouseover it - navbar in frame always shows next lower menu plus "back" link - navigtion bar plus simplified site map graphic with you-are-here cues I'm not completely happy with any of these, but like the last approach best. > Yes, the button action is nice, and the page loads reasonably quickly > (though shows nothing on my system until completely loaded). How is it > that kind of code to maintain? I've been holding off on this stuff because the most portable way to do it is to make all the menu items graphics. These are harder to update than simple text menus. They also are part of the color scheme for the site - which we haven't decided on yet. Hal
At 5:57 PM -0800 1/12/99, Thomas G. Lockhart wrote: >You're not off the hook that easily. We have already acknowledged that >we are design-impaired. And a good book on design won't cure us. So we >are trying to survey web sites and propose candidate looks. Got one or a >few to suggest which have the right look? Well, now that you mention it, http://www.yahoo.com and http://home.netscape.com aren't bad. Give or take some mandatory advertising, the actual information dominates the layout, they don't have a lot of separate inclusions so they load pretty fast, and the headings and information organization are understandable. Also variable news links are nicely separated from the stable core headings. I'd still give mulberrytech the edge as a site type similar to Postgres. Clear menu on the left, nice introduction on the home page, and a really elegant restrained color scheme. If you wanted to add some javascript highlighting to the menu it might be nice, but it would slow the load time---not a clear win. I really think you'll have a hard time beating this one. Some variations are whether you use frames to separate the menu or not and putting the menu on the right/top/bottom instead of the left. Different issue: As a Mac user I feel compelled to point out that the Mac made it easy to build documents with gratuitous font changes and allowed amateurs to foist their experiments on all of us. The Mac, like the Web, is just a tool and it's still the responsibility of the person using the tool to use it correctly. Font changes can be good, for example to distinguish headings from body text. The need to do that, and the limited font support on the web, are a major reason many designers use graphics for the header text (look at just about any of the pages on http://www.apple.com, or notice that the mulberrytech menu header items are graphic but the subbullets are text). Come to think of it Apple's web site deserves study. The home page is a bit splashy, but once you get past it they have a lot of good useful stuff, it has a pretty clear layout, and a lot of it is dynamically generated to boot. Signature failed Preliminary Design Review. Feasibility of a new signature is currently being evaluated. h.b.hotz@jpl.nasa.gov, or hbhotz@oxy.edu
> As a Mac user I feel compelled to point out that the Mac made it easy to > build documents with gratuitous font changes and allowed amateurs to foist > their experiments on all of us. The Mac, like the Web, is just a tool and > it's still the responsibility of the person using the tool to use it > correctly. Yes. I picked it as a good example of new technology badly used by amateurs, that's all. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026