bg-rubytalk at infofiend.com
Thu Feb 24 14:49:52 EST 2005
So far in this thread, I think we have general agreement about the
Curt Hibbs wrote:
> - What should is be/do/look?
* minimal, simple, clean (not overwhelming with links, etc)
* better search (both easier to find, and more functional)
* accessible for people with disabilities
* available in multiple languages (en & jp are a must, others are very
* emphasize key areas: downloads, news, documentation
* some kind of logo
* standards-compliant (valid HTML, CSS, ...)
* easy to maintain
> - What should it not be/do/look?
* red and white just because of "Ruby", it's more important that it be
* chock full'o animated gifs, instead use few, if any, animated gifs,
rotating images, or otherwise "moving things"
* out-of-date -- some means should be found to make sure that the site
* use obfuscated urls -- you should know at a glance what info you might
find at a given URL, rather than http://ruby-lang.org/en/2304982034.html
The controversial areas seem to be:
* The "blogginess" of the site. Should it be bloggy, or should it be
mostly static / more corporate?
* How much is too much? There should clearly be a "download" link, but
Why's Poignant Guide probably doesn't belong there, but where do we draw
Am I missing any agreed on must-haves, must-not-haves? Am I missing any
other areas of controversy?
More information about the vit-discuss