Thread: Requirements for updated site

As we have some newcomers (g'day to them :-) ), I'll outline the basic
requirements for the new site that Andreas has been working on:

1) Should be multilingual for static and non-static pages.
2) The entire site must be able to be built into static HTML pages that
can be mirrored.
3) XHTML/CSS compliant.
4) The page width should be variable.
5) All common code should be moved into global files as appropriate.
6) An interface must be implemented to allow easy translation of pages,
preferably without the need for the translators to know HTML.

That's it in a nutshell. Specifically, with the exception of the width
thing we do *not* want a new design yet - that can wait until the new
framework is in place.

Robert has outlined much of the todo stuff already so I won't go over
that again, but *please* we must coordinate any effort rather than have
various ppl working on their own on the same problems.

Any questions, email the list, or I'll be on the #postgresql channel on
irc.freenode.net for a bit tonight (nick: pgsnake) as well as Yahoo
(pgsnake again).

Regards, Dave.

Let me shortly point out the status of this out of my point of view. However, as I currently don't have the time to
activelywork on this, feel free to kill my code and implement it as you think ;) 

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Andreas Grabmüller

----- Original-Nachricht -----
Von: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
An: <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Datum: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 08:37 PM
Betreff: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site

> As we have some newcomers (g'day to them :-) ), I'll outline the basic
> requirements for the new site that Andreas has been working on:
>
> 1) Should be multilingual for static and non-static pages.

Nothing has been translated yet (except the layout which has been translated into german: see system/languages/de.php)

> 2) The entire site must be able to be built into static HTML pages that
> can be mirrored.

This is now done using the rebuildcache tool. See tools/rebuildcache

> 3) XHTML/CSS compliant.

This is not yet done. Michael wanted to work on this, but I don't know if he has done anything yet.

> 4) The page width should be variable.

This has already been done.

> 5) All common code should be moved into global files as appropriate.

See the system and system/global directories.

> 6) An interface must be implemented to allow easy translation of pages,
> preferably without the need for the translators to know HTML.

There is something in the admin directory. However I don't know if you can call this "easy" and it's not yet capable of
wysiwygor bbcode. 

> That's it in a nutshell. Specifically, with the exception of the width
> thing we do *not* want a new design yet - that can wait until the new
> framework is in place.
>
> Robert has outlined much of the todo stuff already so I won't go over
> that again, but *please* we must coordinate any effort rather than have
> various ppl working on their own on the same problems.
>
> Any questions, email the list, or I'll be on the #postgresql channel on
> irc.freenode.net for a bit tonight (nick: pgsnake) as well as Yahoo
> (pgsnake again).
>
> Regards, Dave.
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

--
LetzPlay.de
| Freemail:       http://www.letzplay.de/mail
| Forenhosting: http://www.letzplay.de/foren

Hi!

Dave Page wrote:
> 1) Should be multilingual for static and non-static pages.

Looks like this part is working now. Although the l10n of the static (i.e. not
kept in the DB) content can be made in a better way: using gettext or something
similar. While the pages are mostly translated, the feedback messages in e.g.
system/handleform.php are not.

> 2) The entire site must be able to be built into static HTML pages that
> can be mirrored.

Looks like this part is working.

I only want to propose keeping English version in root, not in en/: most of the
mirror sites will be completely static and unable to redirect to en/ if the user
hits the root.

> 3) XHTML/CSS compliant.
> 4) The page width should be variable.

The problem with the current code is that HTML is embedded in PHP. It is thus
*extremely* difficult to edit it. Besides, files in system/layout contain not
only presentation, but business logic as well (database queries, this kind of
stuff).

I suggest either
a) Using a template engine
or
b) Creating HTML pages with *minimal* (presentation only) PHP embedded inside them.

Besides, can you give your opinion on sime other usability-related layout
changes I proposed?

> 5) All common code should be moved into global files as appropriate.

Already done, I suppose. Although some of these global files can benefit from a
bit of cleaning and commenting, I suppose. ;]

> 6) An interface must be implemented to allow easy translation of pages,
> preferably without the need for the translators to know HTML.

This can be done by using e.g. Wiki markup. But this will limit the layout
possibilities.

Although I don't see a big problem here: translators will not need to *write*
HTML, but just to translate the words between tags.

I'd also add another entry:
7) Robust admin interface. The current one does not offer any protection from
user errors.


> That's it in a nutshell. Specifically, with the exception of the width
> thing we do *not* want a new design yet - that can wait until the new
> framework is in place.
>
> Robert has outlined much of the todo stuff already so I won't go over
> that again, but *please* we must coordinate any effort rather than have
> various ppl working on their own on the same problems.
>
> Any questions, email the list, or I'll be on the #postgresql channel on
> irc.freenode.net for a bit tonight (nick: pgsnake) as well as Yahoo
> (pgsnake again).

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su]
> Sent: 14 January 2004 21:13
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> Hi!
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> > 1) Should be multilingual for static and non-static pages.
>
> Looks like this part is working now. Although the l10n of the
> static (i.e. not kept in the DB) content can be made in a
> better way: using gettext or something similar. While the
> pages are mostly translated, the feedback messages in e.g.
> system/handleform.php are not.

Is it not easier to put everything in the DB? How would we handle the editting of po files on the server?

Bear in mind that the vast majority of the site (10K pages or so) is already in the database with embedded (and messy)
HTMLtags. 

> I only want to propose keeping English version in root, not
> in en/: most of the mirror sites will be completely static
> and unable to redirect to en/ if the user hits the root.

Iirc (and bear in mind I don't know Andreas' code well), the mirrors only need mod_rewrite to work properly.

> > 3) XHTML/CSS compliant.
> > 4) The page width should be variable.
>
> The problem with the current code is that HTML is embedded in
> PHP. It is thus
> *extremely* difficult to edit it. Besides, files in
> system/layout contain not only presentation, but business
> logic as well (database queries, this kind of stuff).
>
> I suggest either
> a) Using a template engine
> or
> b) Creating HTML pages with *minimal* (presentation only) PHP
> embedded inside them.

No problem there, however let's be careful not over engineer things. If (for example) the entire site is in a single
databasethen a single php file is all that is required. Splitting that file up too much into different layers is
unlikelyto help with anything other than making it harder to see how it works. 

I realise it's more complex than that, and some abstraction of different logical layers will help - I just want to
avoidtaking it to the Nth degree for the sake of it. 

> Besides, can you give your opinion on sime other
> usability-related layout changes I proposed?

I haven't seen you post any.

> > 6) An interface must be implemented to allow easy translation of
> > pages, preferably without the need for the translators to know HTML.
>
> This can be done by using e.g. Wiki markup. But this will
> limit the layout possibilities.
>
> Although I don't see a big problem here: translators will not
> need to *write* HTML, but just to translate the words between tags.

That doesn't always work. Consider this text from the pgAdmin translation guidelines:
----
Some messages include %s or %d variables placeholders. During execution, %s will be replaced by a string and %d by a
decimalnumber. Please take special care about including all %s and %d variable placeholders correctly. If you make a
typoerror, the application might crash. On some occasions, it might be necessary to reorder placeholders. In the
following(fictive) example, both parameter positions are exchanged: 'Server %s user %s is logged in' could be
translatedby 'L\'utilisateur s%2$s est connecté au serveur %1$s.'.  
----

The word order (and possibly the appropriate tags around those words) changes in the translation, thus the translator
mustunderstand the markup to correctly rearrange it. 

> I'd also add another entry:
> 7) Robust admin interface. The current one does not offer any
> protection from user errors.

No, it doesn't (but should). That's mainly because it's lifted from the current code which is used almost entirely by
Devrim,Robert & I - and we know it's limitations! 

Regards, Dave.

----- Original-Nachricht -----
Von: "Dave Page" <dpage@vale-housing.co.uk>
An: "Alexey Borzov" <borz_off@cs.msu.su>
CC: <pgsql-www@postgresql.org>
Datum: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:00 PM
Betreff: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su]
> > Sent: 14 January 2004 21:13
> > To: Dave Page
> > Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> > Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
> >
> > I only want to propose keeping English version in root, not
> > in en/: most of the mirror sites will be completely static
> > and unable to redirect to en/ if the user hits the root.
>
> Iirc (and bear in mind I don't know Andreas' code well), the mirrors only need mod_rewrite to work properly.

mod_rewrite is not needed on the mirrors. They just need to have index.htm as index file handler so the visitors will
seethis page: http://wwwdevel2.postgresql.org/index.htm 

> Regards, Dave.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Andreas Grabmüller

--
LetzPlay.de
| Freemail:       http://www.letzplay.de/mail
| Forenhosting: http://www.letzplay.de/foren

Hi!

Dave Page wrote:
> Is it not easier to put everything in the DB? How would we handle the editting of po files on the server?

We won't. People will edit them locally and send for the inclusion in CVS.

> Bear in mind that the vast majority of the site (10K pages or so) is already in the database with embedded (and
messy)HTML tags. 

I presume that 99.9% of these is documentation. And it won't be translated, at
least not in *this* way.

> Iirc (and bear in mind I don't know Andreas' code well), the mirrors only need mod_rewrite to work properly.

Looking at the code: I presume they don't need it and can be completely static.

>>I suggest either
>>a) Using a template engine
>>or
>>b) Creating HTML pages with *minimal* (presentation only) PHP
>>embedded inside them.
>
>
> No problem there, however let's be careful not over engineer things. If (for example) the entire site is in a single
databasethen a single php file is all that is required. Splitting that file up too much into different layers is
unlikelyto help with anything other than making it harder to see how it works. 

Well, the fact that the whole site is dispatched by a single page does not mean
that the whole code for the site should be in just one file. And it definitely
does not mean that all the HTML should be in the same file.

> I realise it's more complex than that, and some abstraction of different logical layers will help - I just want to
avoidtaking it to the Nth degree for the sake of it. 

Well, currently the person wanting to do some cosmetic changes to the design
will have to wade through a ton of PHP code. I don't think a bit of abstraction
will *hurt* here.


Right now I want to take up the following: port the current portal code to using
the template engine. I will use HTML_Template_Sigma
(http://pear.php.net/package/HTML_Template_Sigma) as this is the thing I'm most
comfortable with and it has a simple enough template syntax.

I'll create a template for the common HTML "frame" and templates for all
database-driven (as opposed to static) pages. I'll also split system/page.php
into several files to ease further maintenance.

Is it OK?

>>Besides, can you give your opinion on sime other
>>usability-related layout changes I proposed?
>
> I haven't seen you post any.

Suggestions sent to pgsql-advocacy:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-01/msg00161.php
Mock-up:
http://oc.cs.msu.su/stuff/PostgreSQL.html


>>Although I don't see a big problem here: translators will not
>>need to *write* HTML, but just to translate the words between tags.
>
>
> That doesn't always work. Consider this text from the pgAdmin translation guidelines:
> ----
> Some messages include %s or %d variables placeholders. During execution, %s will be replaced by a string and %d by a
decimalnumber. Please take special care about including all %s and %d variable placeholders correctly. If you make a
typoerror, the application might crash. On some occasions, it might be necessary to reorder placeholders. In the
following(fictive) example, both parameter positions are exchanged: 'Server %s user %s is logged in' could be
translatedby 'L\'utilisateur s%2$s est connecté au serveur %1$s.'.  
> ----
>
> The word order (and possibly the appropriate tags around those words) changes in the translation, thus the translator
mustunderstand the markup to correctly rearrange it. 


If we choose between better design and lower barrier of entry for translators, I
vote for design...


>>I'd also add another entry:
>>7) Robust admin interface. The current one does not offer any
>>protection from user errors.
>
> No, it doesn't (but should). That's mainly because it's lifted from the current code which is used almost entirely by
Devrim,Robert & I - and we know it's limitations! 

Now consider the number of people who are going to work on the site after the
translations framework is in place...

We'll probably need a system to manage access to different content as well.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su]
> Sent: 15 January 2004 09:32
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> Hi!
>
> Dave Page wrote:
> > Is it not easier to put everything in the DB? How would we
> handle the editting of po files on the server?
>
> We won't. People will edit them locally and send for the
> inclusion in CVS.
>
> > Bear in mind that the vast majority of the site (10K pages
> or so) is already in the database with embedded (and messy) HTML tags.
>
> I presume that 99.9% of these is documentation. And it won't
> be translated, at least not in *this* way.

Why not? The whole point is to have *one* system for the whole site and
not a mish-mash of different ways of building bits of the site.

> Well, currently the person wanting to do some cosmetic
> changes to the design will have to wade through a ton of PHP
> code. I don't think a bit of abstraction will *hurt* here.

As that has been the same 2 or 3 people for years, I don't see that that
is a major issue (and we are not going to have an influds. What is a
major issue is that there is layout specific code in lot's of different
files. To change the masthead for example, there might be 20 or more
individual updates to make.

> Right now I want to take up the following: port the current
> portal code to using the template engine. I will use
> HTML_Template_Sigma
> (http://pear.php.net/package/HTML_Template_Sigma) as this is
> the thing I'm most comfortable with and it has a simple
> enough template syntax.
>
> I'll create a template for the common HTML "frame" and
> templates for all database-driven (as opposed to static)
> pages. I'll also split system/page.php into several files to
> ease further maintenance.
>
> Is it OK?

I fail to see why on earth we need to go to such lengths. All this could
be achieved with a simple script - how can you possibly justify an
entire 'template engine'? (and seperation of PHP and HTML is not an
answer in my opinion).

> >>Besides, can you give your opinion on sime other usability-related
> >>layout changes I proposed?
> >
> > I haven't seen you post any.
>
> Suggestions sent to pgsql-advocacy:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-01/msg00161.php

Some valid points, but most of them are simply matters of opinion or
done that way for historical reasons. For example, changing the name
Gborg will cause major disruption to tens if not hundreds of mailing
lists. Taking your issue about the licence link - previously it was on a
more info page as you suggest, but we got fed up with so many queries
about the licence from ppl. It was moved to the front page and those
queries more or less stopped overnight.

Bear in mind that this version of the site was designed over many months
with lot's of mockups and demo sites. That was the design we all agreed
we liked the best. It has since been tweaked and revised on a number of
occasions for readability and accessibility reasons.

As I said before, we have a specific todo list here. First build the
framework, second update the design and third, restructure all
appropriate sites and content.

> Mock-up:
> http://oc.cs.msu.su/stuff/PostgreSQL.html

Sorry, but I think that just looks a mess. Quick straw poll of the
office here indicates most others think the same.

Much as you may not like the existing design, it is tidy, structured and
frames and focuses the user on the main content.

> > No, it doesn't (but should). That's mainly because it's
> lifted from the current code which is used almost entirely by
> Devrim, Robert & I - and we know it's limitations!
>
> Now consider the number of people who are going to work on
> the site after the
> translations framework is in place...

OK, I've ignored it up until now, but please read what I write before
you respond.

Regards, Dave.

Hi!

I will not bother being polite either...

Dave Page wrote:
>>I presume that 99.9% of these is documentation. And it won't
>>be translated, at least not in *this* way.
>
> Why not? The whole point is to have *one* system for the whole site and
> not a mish-mash of different ways of building bits of the site.

Because it is STUPID. Because the docs are written in DocBook and HTML is built
from this. Because when you translate "just" HTML, you won't be able to convert
"translated" docs to other formats like PS or PDF. Because doc translation is
far beyond the scope of website project.

Enough reasons?

>>Well, currently the person wanting to do some cosmetic
>>changes to the design will have to wade through a ton of PHP
>>code. I don't think a bit of abstraction will *hurt* here.
>
> As that has been the same 2 or 3 people for years, I don't see that that
> is a major issue (and we are not going to have an influds. What is a
> major issue is that there is layout specific code in lot's of different
> files. To change the masthead for example, there might be 20 or more
> individual updates to make.

I was *not* talking about current "www" dir where "layout specific code in lot's
of different files", its state is best described by a Russian saying "Gorbatogo
mogila ispravit", or literally "The grave will cure the hunchback".

In the current "portal" dir all the layout is finally in *one* place, but it is
not even PHP embedded in HTML, it is HTML embedded in PHP. It is impossible to
edit this spaghetti.

> I fail to see why on earth we need to go to such lengths. All this could
> be achieved with a simple script - how can you possibly justify an
> entire 'template engine'? (and seperation of PHP and HTML is not an
> answer in my opinion).

Separation of PHP and HTML (or rather of domain and presentation logic: you are
keeping SQL *and* HTML in one file, tangled in rather interesting ways!) is not
an answer in one case: when you are the only one developing something and when
you don't want anynone's dirty hands touch your precious-s-s code.

>>Suggestions sent to pgsql-advocacy:
>>http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-advocacy/2004-01/msg00161.php
>
> Some valid points, but most of them are simply matters of opinion or
> done that way for historical reasons. For example, changing the name
> Gborg will cause major disruption to tens if not hundreds of mailing
> lists. Taking your issue about the licence link - previously it was on a
> more info page as you suggest, but we got fed up with so many queries
> about the licence from ppl. It was moved to the front page and those
> queries more or less stopped overnight.
>
> Bear in mind that this version of the site was designed over many months
> with lot's of mockups and demo sites. That was the design we all agreed
> we liked the best. It has since been tweaked and revised on a number of
> occasions for readability and accessibility reasons.

Wow. That's why main menu is in 'x-small'? For *readability* and *accessibility*
reasons? Wow.

> As I said before, we have a specific todo list here. First build the
> framework, second update the design and third, restructure all
> appropriate sites and content.

Well, right above you objected to building the framework and making is easier to
  update design. Where's truth?

> Sorry, but I think that just looks a mess. Quick straw poll of the
> office here indicates most others think the same.

Fair enough.

> Much as you may not like the existing design, it is tidy, structured and
> frames and focuses the user on the main content.

Well, as you are probably the designer of the thing, I only have to agree. This
is *absolutely* fabulous design, the best I've ever seen. I sincerely hope that
MySQL AB will hire you to redesign their site as well, so that the projects will
be able to compete on even grounds!


I won't mention the fact that most of the questions about postgresql I see go
like this: "where do I get the windows port?", "where do I get a specific
interface?", "does postgresql have replication?". But that's me, I read wrong
lists and forums, such questions are not asked on pgsql-www, because it is
conveniently closed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Borzov [mailto:borz_off@cs.msu.su]
> Sent: 15 January 2004 11:22
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> Hi!
>
> I will not bother being polite either...

I wasn't aware I had stopped being polite. If so I apologise.

> Dave Page wrote:
> >>I presume that 99.9% of these is documentation. And it won't be
> >>translated, at least not in *this* way.
> >
> > Why not? The whole point is to have *one* system for the whole site
> > and not a mish-mash of different ways of building bits of the site.
>
> Because it is STUPID. Because the docs are written in DocBook
> and HTML is built from this. Because when you translate
> "just" HTML, you won't be able to convert "translated" docs
> to other formats like PS or PDF. Because doc translation is
> far beyond the scope of website project.
>
> Enough reasons?

Not really because what you have written makes little sense to me. Why
can't you convert translated HTML to other formats? What does it matter
to the web project anyway?

> Separation of PHP and HTML (or rather of domain and
> presentation logic: you are keeping SQL *and* HTML in one
> file, tangled in rather interesting ways!) is not an answer
> in one case: when you are the only one developing something
> and when you don't want anynone's dirty hands touch your
> precious-s-s code.

Again, you are not reading what I have said.

1) I advocated some seperation and cleanup of code. I *do not* want a
system where it is split into *too many* separate places, thus making it
a nightmare to see the whole picture easily.

2) It is not my precious-s-s code. I did not write it.

>
> Wow. That's why main menu is in 'x-small'? For *readability*
> and *accessibility* reasons? Wow.

Which on my standard configuration Windows XP machine is the same size
font as the font I'm typing this email in - also standard for Outlook
2003. When coded it was tested in many browsers on many platforms with
no reported anomolies that I am aware of.

You will note that if a user increases the font size in their browser,
then the text increases appropriately rather than being fixed at a
smaller size in the stylesheet.

> > As I said before, we have a specific todo list here. First
> build the
> > framework, second update the design and third, restructure all
> > appropriate sites and content.
>
> Well, right above you objected to building the framework and
> making is easier to
>   update design. Where's truth?

We want a framework. We do not want an overcomplicated framework. Why
split everything into a dozen different files and a template engine if 3
or 4 files with a little PHP code will work just fine, and be just as
maintainable, if not more so?

> > Much as you may not like the existing design, it is tidy,
> structured
> > and frames and focuses the user on the main content.
>
> Well, as you are probably the designer of the thing, I only
> have to agree. This is *absolutely* fabulous design, the best
> I've ever seen. I sincerely hope that MySQL AB will hire you
> to redesign their site as well, so that the projects will be
> able to compete on even grounds!

Again, you're not listening. Yes, I coded the original portal, however
the design was the collaborative work of a group of people, including
members of -core. What can possibly make you imagine that you can come
in here, tell us that the work and designs agreed by a number of people
is crap and expect us to rewrite everything your way without discussion?

Now don't get me wrong, the current design is not perfect, but it was
agreed by concensus. We are open to suggestions in the correct forum
(here or webmaster@postgresql.org) and have implemented numerous in the
past, however as stated though, we already have a basic plan in place,
and whatever suggestions we take on will have to fit in with that.

> I won't mention the fact that most of the questions about
> postgresql I see go like this: "where do I get the windows
> port?", "where do I get a specific interface?", "does
> postgresql have replication?".

All of which can be seen within 2 clicks of the homepage, but none of
your suggestions would address that in any way as far as I could see.
Some wording might change, but the usefulness of that is subjective.

> But that's me, I read wrong
> lists and forums, such questions are not asked on pgsql-www,
> because it is conveniently closed.

It was closed, it is not now. Following a change of ppl we opened the
list and made the archives public. Anyone is free to subscribe - the
only restriction is that we wish to stay tighly on topic so
subscriptions must be approved to ensure all list members truly have an
interest in helping out.

For those that simply wish to mail off a suggestion, the
webmaster@postgresql.org address may be used. That address is monitored
by various ppl including some that are not part of the web team to
ensure that  people get an appropriate response.

Regards, Dave.

-On [20040115 13:22], Dave Page (dpage@vale-housing.co.uk) wrote:
>Not really because what you have written makes little sense to me. Why
>can't you convert translated HTML to other formats? What does it matter
>to the web project anyway?

It can be used, it isn't the best format to describe things in.  E.g.
Japanese has no concept of bold or italic that I am aware of.  They use
katakana for this within their kanji.
Something like DocBook has been designed to handle the fact of
<warning>blah</warning> in whatever language to be translated through
stylesheets into whatever is appropriate for a particular language.
Never mind me on this topic though, I am just pedantic on this, since I
meddle too much with l10n/i18n and technical writing. :)

>> Well, as you are probably the designer of the thing, I only
>> have to agree. This is *absolutely* fabulous design, the best
>> I've ever seen. I sincerely hope that MySQL AB will hire you
>> to redesign their site as well, so that the projects will be
>> able to compete on even grounds!

Please put the sarcasm aside, it never helps a clear communication.

>Again, you're not listening. Yes, I coded the original portal, however
>the design was the collaborative work of a group of people, including
>members of -core. What can possibly make you imagine that you can come
>in here, tell us that the work and designs agreed by a number of people
>is crap and expect us to rewrite everything your way without discussion?

Well, Marc has said often enough he can't do webdesign worth a jack. ;)
But seriously, is everybody on this list a webdesigner?
I know I am not a professional one, I just dabble and try to be very
pedantic about designs which place user interaction on the first place.
If you can then make things aesthetically nice it is a very good thing.

>Now don't get me wrong, the current design is not perfect, but it was
>agreed by concensus. We are open to suggestions in the correct forum
>(here or webmaster@postgresql.org) and have implemented numerous in the
>past, however as stated though, we already have a basic plan in place,
>and whatever suggestions we take on will have to fit in with that.

I sincerely hope that you will do away with the menus on both side of
the center, continuously scrolling up and down is generally disliked by
users.

What doesn't help, but IIRC that's being remedied, is that a lot of
links which fall under postgresql.org have different designs.  This is
highly annoying from a user perspective.

Now that I finally have some more time on my hands I can finally start
to put results where my mouth is. :)

--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://diary.in-nomine.org/
Don't try to find the Answer where there ain't no Question here...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai [mailto:asmodai@wxs.nl]
> Sent: 15 January 2004 12:37
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Alexey Borzov; pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> It can be used, it isn't the best format to describe things in.  E.g.
> Japanese has no concept of bold or italic that I am aware of.
>  They use katakana for this within their kanji.
> Something like DocBook has been designed to handle the fact
> of <warning>blah</warning> in whatever language to be
> translated through stylesheets into whatever is appropriate
> for a particular language.
> Never mind me on this topic though, I am just pedantic on
> this, since I meddle too much with l10n/i18n and technical writing. :)

Feel free to chip in - you clearly know more than I about the subject!

> Well, Marc has said often enough he can't do webdesign worth
> a jack. ;) But seriously, is everybody on this list a webdesigner?
> I know I am not a professional one, I just dabble and try to
> be very pedantic about designs which place user interaction
> on the first place.
> If you can then make things aesthetically nice it is a very
> good thing.

As far as I'm aware, there is only one, perhaps two professional web
designers on this list. There were none when the current site was
designed. I think 'enthusiastic (but busy) amateurs' is probably a good
description of the rest of us.

> >Now don't get me wrong, the current design is not perfect,
> but it was
> >agreed by concensus. We are open to suggestions in the correct forum
> >(here or webmaster@postgresql.org) and have implemented
> numerous in the
> >past, however as stated though, we already have a basic plan
> in place,
> >and whatever suggestions we take on will have to fit in with that.
>
> I sincerely hope that you will do away with the menus on both
> side of the center, continuously scrolling up and down is
> generally disliked by users.

That's definitely an opinion thing. The existing bars frame and focus
the user on the main content, plus the fixed width stops the page
becoming uncomfortably wide on large screens - in my opinion. We have
already agreed to go with a non-fixed width however.

> What doesn't help, but IIRC that's being remedied, is that a
> lot of links which fall under postgresql.org have different
> designs.  This is highly annoying from a user perspective.

Yes, that is part of the master plan!

Regards Dave.

Hi!

Dave Page wrote:
>>I will not bother being polite either...
>
>
> I wasn't aware I had stopped being polite. If so I apologise.

Oh, it's a matter of miscommunication then. :[

Please excuse the sarcasm in the message, I'll start a new thread where
will address most of the points you raised.

Dave Page wrote:
> > I presume that 99.9% of these is documentation. And it won't
> > be translated, at least not in *this* way.
>
> Why not? The whole point is to have *one* system for the whole site
> and not a mish-mash of different ways of building bits of the site.

Well, that's like saying we should edit all PostgreSQL source code in
assembly, because there is some assembly in there and for reasons of
consistency that should be the common denominator. ;-)

If, say, it were accomplished to extract gettext-style message catalogs
from both XHTML and DocBook, then translators could use the same set of
tools, and writers could use the same XML editors for everything.  Just
the internal semantics are going to be different, but they will anyway,
because you're writing two different things.  It would still be a
pretty good "one system" to me.

I keep saying "gettext", because that is the direction that the
documentation is most likely going to go in, because it's successfully
practiced at KDE and all the tools are available.  Nothing is decided
yet, but some translators have expressed strong desires to go that way.
But I'm glad we're here to discuss it so we don't invent the wheel
twice more.

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> > Much as you may not like the existing design, it is tidy, structured and
> > frames and focuses the user on the main content.
>
> Well, as you are probably the designer of the thing, I only have to
> agree. This is *absolutely* fabulous design, the best I've ever seen. I
> sincerely hope that MySQL AB will hire you to redesign their site as
> well, so that the projects will be able to compete on even grounds!

You may want to go back in the list archives and read the many months of
discussions on the current web site ... altho Dave did alot of the coding
on it, it was with *alot* of feedback from the community on what they
liked ... it was *not* one man's vision ...

If you have ideas and suggestions, *sell* them too us ... but being the
antagonist isn't going to win many votes ... the thing is, I think
everyone agrees we could do better ... and for the past I don't know how
many months, everyone has been putting in their 2 cents of how that can be
accomplished ... and now you've just added in your 2 cents too, which is
great.  But if you want to convince anyone that your way is better, you
are goin to have to sell it ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Dave Page wrote:

> Which on my standard configuration Windows XP machine is the same size
> font as the font I'm typing this email in - also standard for Outlook
> 2003. When coded it was tested in many browsers on many platforms with
> no reported anomolies that I am aware of.

Under Mozilla, on a 1600x1200 screen, I've never had any problems reading
the current font, and I don't play with my font settings in the browser
...

> We want a framework. We do not want an overcomplicated framework. Why
> split everything into a dozen different files and a template engine if 3
> or 4 files with a little PHP code will work just fine, and be just as
> maintainable, if not more so?

Okay, I'm a bit curious here, and hope that Alexey can explain it ... what
exactly is a template engine, and how does it work?  Alexey, just because
you are familiar with one doesn't help unless there are others as familiar
... and there needs to be a *really* clear (and well justified) reason for
using one so that others will want to learn how to ... so if you can
explain, and maybe provide an example?  That may help ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:

> Well, Marc has said often enough he can't do webdesign worth a jack. ;)

Hey, I never said I was *that* bad ... but you are right, I'm close :)

> But seriously, is everybody on this list a webdesigner? I know I am not
> a professional one, I just dabble and try to be very pedantic about
> designs which place user interaction on the first place. If you can then
> make things aesthetically nice it is a very good thing.

Agreed, but even someone that isn't a webdesigner has an opinion on
wha they do find nice, and what they don't ... and it was with the
opinions of many that the web site was designed ... I might not be able to
really explain why I don't like Alexey's first attempt, I just know that
the best I can say is that my eyes couldn't seem to focus on anywhere ...
several others have commented similarly ...

> I sincerely hope that you will do away with the menus on both side of
> the center, continuously scrolling up and down is generally disliked by
> users.

'k, not against the getting rid of the dual menus, but am curious as to
how that would reduce the need for scrolling?  Wouldn't that just mean a
longer menu on the one side to scroll through?

> What doesn't help, but IIRC that's being remedied, is that a lot of
> links which fall under postgresql.org have different designs.  This is
> highly annoying from a user perspective.

I think everyone here already agrees with that :)

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

On Thu, 15 Jan 2004, Dave Page wrote:

> > I sincerely hope that you will do away with the menus on both
> > side of the center, continuously scrolling up and down is
> > generally disliked by users.
>
> That's definitely an opinion thing. The existing bars frame and focus
> the user on the main content, plus the fixed width stops the page
> becoming uncomfortably wide on large screens - in my opinion. We have
> already agreed to go with a non-fixed width however.

One argument against the two menus is that there are three areas for the
eye to focus on ... I'd not be adverse to removing the right, myself ...
ppl are used to looking to the left for a menu, and right for content ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

-On [20040116 06:32], Marc G. Fournier (scrappy@postgresql.org) wrote:
>Agreed, but even someone that isn't a webdesigner has an opinion on
>wha they do find nice, and what they don't ... and it was with the
>opinions of many that the web site was designed ... I might not be able to
>really explain why I don't like Alexey's first attempt, I just know that
>the best I can say is that my eyes couldn't seem to focus on anywhere ...
>several others have commented similarly ...

I need to dig up the URL from the archives, hit 'D' a tad bit too fast.

[dual menus]

>'k, not against the getting rid of the dual menus, but am curious as to
>how that would reduce the need for scrolling?  Wouldn't that just mean a
>longer menu on the one side to scroll through?

Well, personally I wonder why you use such a small portion of the
browser window.  Those grey areas on both sides of the content are just
not used, which is a shame.

I was toying with getting the basic design redone in 4.01 STRICT HTML
with CSS: http://www.in-nomine.org/~asmodai/pgsql/

It is butt-ugly due to the text/fontfaces not having their proper sizes,
but it should illustrate the fill.  Now, if you make the fontfaces the
way they should be, you might have fit everything on the page without
scrolling (at least on a 1280x1024 resolution using opera).

Problem with scrolling is that not every person has as steady a hand as
most of us, thus making scrolling a very difficult exercise for them.

Part of it is a preference thing, but:

- either place all the relevant links/sections at the top of the screen
  in a navigational bar (Which MySQL AB seems to do)
- or place it on the left hand side with clear links

People seem to expect these kind of set-ups nowadays.  And like you
said, those three columns make your eyes wander too much, just like on
slashdot.org.

--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://diary.in-nomine.org/
Don't try to find the Answer where there ain't no Question here...

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai wrote:

> Well, personally I wonder why you use such a small portion of the
> browser window.  Those grey areas on both sides of the content are just
> not used, which is a shame.

k, I understand what you mean here ... I'm one that doesn't like it when a
site stretches itself out as wide as the browser will take it, but that's
just me ... with a right/left menu, the 'take up the whole browser' site
spends just too much time going wide<->narrow depending on the page
content ...

>
> It is butt-ugly due to the text/fontfaces not having their proper sizes,
> but it should illustrate the fill.  Now, if you make the fontfaces the
> way they should be, you might have fit everything on the page without
> scrolling (at least on a 1280x1024 resolution using opera).

Except how many ppl are running that high a resolution ... ?

> Problem with scrolling is that not every person has as steady a hand as
> most of us, thus making scrolling a very difficult exercise for them.

Agreed ... not always possible to keep off the scrolling though ...

> Part of it is a preference thing, but:
>
> - either place all the relevant links/sections at the top of the screen
>   in a navigational bar (Which MySQL AB seems to do)
> - or place it on the left hand side with clear links
>
> People seem to expect these kind of set-ups nowadays.  And like you
> said, those three columns make your eyes wander too much, just like on
> slashdot.org.

the thing is, I don't find the current site causes my eyes to jump around
... as someone else mentioned, wtih the left/right menu, your eyes tend to
be more focused 'center' ... its balanced ...

Alexey's mock up seemed impressionistic in its layout ... throw the paint
against the wall and see how it falls :(

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

-On [20040116 06:22], Marc G. Fournier (scrappy@postgresql.org) wrote:
>Okay, I'm a bit curious here, and hope that Alexey can explain it ... what
>exactly is a template engine, and how does it work?  Alexey, just because
>you are familiar with one doesn't help unless there are others as familiar
>... and there needs to be a *really* clear (and well justified) reason for
>using one so that others will want to learn how to ... so if you can
>explain, and maybe provide an example?  That may help ...

See for example: www.template-toolkit.org

You create pseudo-HTML pages which have specialised code/markup which
gets replaced on the fly.

E.g. each page has:

[ %HEADER% ]

Which gets replaced by the file header.html.tmpl (assuming you defined
HEADER to be that file somewhere).

Just an example I created, might not match what template-toolkit does.

--
Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(at)wxs.nl> / asmodai / kita no mono
PGP fingerprint: 2D92 980E 45FE 2C28 9DB7  9D88 97E6 839B 2EAC 625B
http://www.tendra.org/   | http://diary.in-nomine.org/
Don't try to find the Answer where there ain't no Question here...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai [mailto:asmodai@wxs.nl]
> Sent: 16 January 2004 05:47
> To: Marc G. Fournier
> Cc: Dave Page; Alexey Borzov; pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> Well, personally I wonder why you use such a small portion of
> the browser window.  Those grey areas on both sides of the
> content are just not used, which is a shame.

It's designed to fit nicely on an 800x600 display, however, it has been
mentioned a number of times that the one new design feature that the new
site will initially implement is variable sizing of the 'page':
http://wwwdevel2.postgresql.org

(which incidently seems to have lost the thin black border around the
outside of the 'paper')

> People seem to expect these kind of set-ups nowadays.  And
> like you said, those three columns make your eyes wander too
> much, just like on slashdot.org.

I disagree with that. I find that the columns either side (especially
being in a darker bg colour) frame and focus the eye onto the main
content.

Regards, Dave.

Hi!

Dave Page wrote:
>>People seem to expect these kind of set-ups nowadays.  And
>>like you said, those three columns make your eyes wander too
>>much, just like on slashdot.org.
>
>
> I disagree with that. I find that the columns either side (especially
> being in a darker bg colour) frame and focus the eye onto the main
> content.

You consider this a feature, I consider this a problem.

When *you* come to the website (or I do, for that matter) you already
know its layout and look at the main content --- news.

Now, what happens when a *new* visitor comes to the website? Should
*his* eyes be focused on main content? No, first thing he should
understand is "what is this site about" and "what is it basic
structure". The current layout does not help this at all.

The main attention anchor should usually be the logo. This is not so at
postgresql.org: logo is located at the right of the page, while usually
it is at the left (unless we think that most of the site's visitors read
  right to left (in case you are unsure, we read left to right here in
Russia)). It does not have enough contrast and is located between two
*big* banners bearing the website's colors.

Then the logo must direct attention to the main navigation structure.
The main navigation structure is bad, too: the letters are small (OK in
IE, but *small* in Mozilla, both under Windows and Linux) and not
contrast enough.

The navigation menus on the left and right do not fit into the screen in
any resolution. What's worse, it is impossible to see even the headers
of the ones at the bottom, i.e. 'gborg' and 'international'!



These were the issues I tried to address in my mock-up. And at least it
allows me to get overview of the whole site without need to scroll @
1024x768 (this is the most common resolution now).

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> Now, what happens when a *new* visitor comes to the website? Should
> *his* eyes be focused on main content? No, first thing he should
> understand is "what is this site about" and "what is it basic
> structure". The current layout does not help this at all.

At least new visitors to the current site don't leave cross-eyed ... I
give that a big check over what you've proposed ...

> Then the logo must direct attention to the main navigation structure.
> The main navigation structure is bad, too: the letters are small (OK in
> IE, but *small* in Mozilla, both under Windows and Linux) and not
> contrast enough.

I run Mozilla under FreeBSD, and find the site perfectly readable as it is
...

> The navigation menus on the left and right do not fit into the screen in
> any resolution. What's worse, it is impossible to see even the headers
> of the ones at the bottom, i.e. 'gborg' and 'international'!

Huh?  What resolution are you running?  I have a laptop at home that I
loaded it up to last night and got the 'gray borders' on either side ...

> These were the issues I tried to address in my mock-up. And at least it
> allows me to get overview of the whole site without need to scroll @
> 1024x768 (this is the most common resolution now).

I run higher resolution on my desktop then laptop, and laptop is at home,
but up/down scroll doesn't bother me, and on neither my laptop or desktop
do I have to scroll left/right ... in fact, on my desktop at 1600x1200,
the following sites all require me to still scroll up/down:

http://www.mozilla.org
    - menu on left, 'sub menu' across the top right
http://www.kde.org
    - menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right
http://www.freebsd.org
    - menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right
http://www.gimp.org
    - menu on left side
http://www.redhat.com
    - three frames down the middle, menu across the top
http://www.debian.org
    - menu on left side and across the top

in all 6 above cases, on a 1600x1200 resolution screen, using Mozilla 1.6b
with default fonts, I have to scroll up and down, so it seems pretty
common ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org]
> Sent: 16 January 2004 15:04
> To: Alexey Borzov
> Cc: Dave Page; Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai; Marc G. Fournier;
> pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:
>
> > Then the logo must direct attention to the main navigation
> structure.
> > The main navigation structure is bad, too: the letters are
> small (OK
> > in IE, but *small* in Mozilla, both under Windows and
> Linux) and not
> > contrast enough.
>
> I run Mozilla under FreeBSD, and find the site perfectly
> readable as it is ...

Just retested under Suse 9 <grin>x86_64</grin> using Mozilla and
Konquerer and it all looks OK. Actually, if I'm honest the font is a
little *large* in Konqueror.

> > The navigation menus on the left and right do not fit into
> the screen
> > in any resolution. What's worse, it is impossible to see even the
> > headers of the ones at the bottom, i.e. 'gborg' and 'international'!
>
> Huh?  What resolution are you running?  I have a laptop at
> home that I loaded it up to last night and got the 'gray
> borders' on either side ...

It was developed mainly on a laptop running at 1024x768 with the aim the
it should display OK on 800x600 - which it still does here. Admittedly
there is a fair bit of gray at 1600x1280, but Andreas' has fixed that
issue in the new version by making the width stretchy.

Regards, Dave

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Dave Page wrote:

> > Huh?  What resolution are you running?  I have a laptop at
> > home that I loaded it up to last night and got the 'gray
> > borders' on either side ...
>
> It was developed mainly on a laptop running at 1024x768 with the aim the
> it should display OK on 800x600 - which it still does here. Admittedly
> there is a fair bit of gray at 1600x1280, but Andreas' has fixed that
> issue in the new version by making the width stretchy.

True, but the 'fair bit of gray' doesn't bother me, since I know I'm
running at a higher then usual resolution ... the thing is, if I cared, I
could shrink my mozilla window to remove the gray and have more visible
space on my screen *shrug*

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org]
> Sent: 16 January 2004 15:29
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Marc G. Fournier; Alexey Borzov; Jeroen Ruigrok/asmodai;
> pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: RE: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
> True, but the 'fair bit of gray' doesn't bother me, since I
> know I'm running at a higher then usual resolution ... the
> thing is, if I cared, I could shrink my mozilla window to
> remove the gray and have more visible space on my screen *shrug*

Yeah, that was always my choice. My early 'puting days were spend in
Open Windows on Suns where it was far more normal to run lots of windows
at once, all visible together with little or no overlaps - I wouldn't
have dreamt of full-screening NCSA Mosaic back 'in the day'!

Still, the concensus on the list seemed to be to change to a stretchy
design, so that's what the new one is. Makes no difference to me as long
as I can still keep my browser width down.

Regards, Dave.

Hi!

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>These were the issues I tried to address in my mock-up. And at least it
>>allows me to get overview of the whole site without need to scroll @
>>1024x768 (this is the most common resolution now).
>
>
> I run higher resolution on my desktop then laptop, and laptop is at home,
> but up/down scroll doesn't bother me, and on neither my laptop or desktop
> do I have to scroll left/right ... in fact, on my desktop at 1600x1200,
> the following sites all require me to still scroll up/down:

Scrolling itself is not the problem. The problem is *what* you see
without scrolling:

> http://www.mozilla.org
>     - menu on left, 'sub menu' across the top right

Logo stands out, top-right main menu has a color different from
everything else, search box is available. Left column that needs
scrolling contains not navigation, but "features" and "news"


> http://www.kde.org
>     - menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right

Logo stands out, the most important menu items fit into the screen in
1024x768, mirror selection and search boxes are available.

> http://www.freebsd.org
>     - menu on both sides, 'sub menu' across the top right

Wow. If it was done in postgresql.org colors, your eyes will be crossed
even more. Still, most important items are above the "fold", mirror
selection box is available, search box is present, but wa-a-ay down.

> http://www.gimp.org
>     - menu on left side

Topmost news item: "WWW.GIMP.ORG will soon get a facelift! The current
design of this site was created more than five years ago. It looked good
at that time, but both the web and the GIMP have evolved since then."


> http://www.redhat.com
>     - three frames down the middle, menu across the top

This is a company site, not a project, bear this in mind. Still: logo,
highly contrast main menu, search box. All the most important features
are above the "fold" in the main area.

> http://www.debian.org
>     - menu on left side and across the top

Logo, highly contrast main menu, mirror selection and search boxes, most
important menu items are available at the top...

Two points:
1) kde, freebsd and debian are *bigger* than postgresql, so their
websites *may* have bigger navigation structures. Now, may I point you to:
http://www.mysql.com/
http://firebird.sf.net/
http://www.sapdb.org/
?..

2) In the current website you see the following at the top
   a) What is... (leading to a page about PGDG)
   b) Licence
   c) Case studies
   d) Contact the webmasters
   e) Report a bug

Now, are these the most common questions/tasks users come to the site for?

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> Two points:
> 1) kde, freebsd and debian are *bigger* than postgresql, so their
> websites *may* have bigger navigation structures. Now, may I point you to:
> http://www.mysql.com/
> http://firebird.sf.net/

Actually, they have a nice site ... I like the menu items up in the top
right like that, up and out of the way ...

> 2) In the current website you see the following at the top
>    a) What is... (leading to a page about PGDG)
>    b) Licence
>    c) Case studies
>    d) Contact the webmasters
>    e) Report a bug

Odd, at the top on my browser, I see:

a) Download
b) Mirrors
c) Lists
d) Users
e) Developers
f) Docs
g) Search

Are you sure you are looking at the same site as the rest of us? *scratch
head*

Now, I find the size of the fonts to be large enough, but maybe if there
was some way of 'highlighting' them so they stood out from the page a bit
more?

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

Hi!

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> Odd, at the top on my browser, I see:
>
> a) Download
> b) Mirrors
> c) Lists
> d) Users
> e) Developers
> f) Docs
> g) Search
>
> Are you sure you are looking at the same site as the rest of us? *scratch
> head*

Look a bit down. Yes, I'm speaking of these ugly blue columns on the
both sides that for some strange reason are liked so much in here.

> Now, I find the size of the fonts to be large enough, but maybe if there
> was some way of 'highlighting' them so they stood out from the page a bit
> more?

Like, move to a saner color palette from the current week-old-corpse one? ;]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> Hi!
>
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > Odd, at the top on my browser, I see:
> >
> > a) Download
> > b) Mirrors
> > c) Lists
> > d) Users
> > e) Developers
> > f) Docs
> > g) Search
> >
> > Are you sure you are looking at the same site as the rest of us? *scratch
> > head*
>
> Look a bit down. Yes, I'm speaking of these ugly blue columns on the
> both sides that for some strange reason are liked so much in here.

Oh, you seemed to indicate that the stuff important to the users visiting
the site were hidden away ...

Oh, the "ugly blue columns that you are the only one that doesn't like"?
Do you have a proposal that would be acceptable to everyone else on how to
improve things?  And please don't re-send the original URL that my 2 year
old could have done a better job of with her crayons ... I'm still getting
over my headache from seeing it the last time ...

> Like, move to a saner color palette from the current week-old-corpse one? ;]

Look forward to seeing what you have in mind ...

BTW, while you are pounding on something that nobody else here seems to
agree about, the rest of us are working on those issues that have been
highlighted as 'needing to do' before we even visit redesigning the site
... if you want to be helpful, you might want to re-focus your energies on
what has a chance of being done now, instead of beating a dead horse ...

There are alot of ppl on this list, all of whom have opinions ... some ppl
on this list have been working *with* the rest for several years now ...
each has their own opinions on things, but each works with the rest for
the overall good ... so far, all your threads have amounted to "my way is
right, your way is wrong, let's change to my way" ...

A site re-design will *not* happen for at least another 6 months, as there
are higher priority things in the works ... now, if you would like to
re-focus your efforts on that in a non-antogonistic way, maybe we can get
those issues resolved and can then focus on a site re-design?  Or doesn't
the 'backend stuff' interest you?

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1


Hi,

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> > Now, I find the size of the fonts to be large enough, but maybe if there
> > was some way of 'highlighting' them so they stood out from the page a bit
> > more?
>
> Like, move to a saner color palette from the current week-old-corpse one? ;]

We have more important things to do. Instead of a new design, I believe
that we must improve the content of the site and also we must improve and
update developer site. I think developer.postgresql.org is more important
than www site, for an open-source products.

Regards,
- --
Devrim GUNDUZ
devrim@gunduz.org                devrim.gunduz@linux.org.tr
            http://www.TDMSoft.com
            http://www.gunduz.org

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFACBROtl86P3SPfQ4RAtJKAKDV9DJjKodobjfEnJGqAqMOBAbOWgCdF8e0
AFBoQeqmo2pn2ng08gT76C4=
=ARaF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Hi!

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>Like, move to a saner color palette from the current week-old-corpse one? ;]
>
> Look forward to seeing what you have in mind ...

I am not a designer. And looking at the archives there were designers
who wanted to contribute their work, but were turned down...

> BTW, while you are pounding on something that nobody else here seems to
> agree about, the rest of us are working on those issues that have been
> highlighted as 'needing to do' before we even visit redesigning the site
> ... if you want to be helpful, you might want to re-focus your energies on
> what has a chance of being done now, instead of beating a dead horse ...
>
> There are alot of ppl on this list, all of whom have opinions ... some ppl
> on this list have been working *with* the rest for several years now ...
> each has their own opinions on things, but each works with the rest for
> the overall good ... so far, all your threads have amounted to "my way is
> right, your way is wrong, let's change to my way" ...
>
> A site re-design will *not* happen for at least another 6 months, as there
> are higher priority things in the works ... now, if you would like to
> re-focus your efforts on that in a non-antogonistic way, maybe we can get
> those issues resolved and can then focus on a site re-design?  Or doesn't
> the 'backend stuff' interest you?

Marc, with all due respect. I already proposed some backend changes and
am willing to start working on them myself. Right now I am waiting for
someone to post the data needed to setup a local copy of the server (see
topic 'database dump needed, after all', it is not in the archives yet).

If you can be that 'someone' (I hope *you* have enough access rights?)
then please do so, I'll start hacking on the backend and will not waste
the subscribers' time until I have something to show them. Thanks in
advance.

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004, Alexey Borzov wrote:

> > A site re-design will *not* happen for at least another 6 months, as there
> > are higher priority things in the works ... now, if you would like to
> > re-focus your efforts on that in a non-antogonistic way, maybe we can get
> > those issues resolved and can then focus on a site re-design?  Or doesn't
> > the 'backend stuff' interest you?
>
> Marc, with all due respect. I already proposed some backend changes and
> am willing to start working on them myself. Right now I am waiting for
> someone to post the data needed to setup a local copy of the server (see
> topic 'database dump needed, after all', it is not in the archives yet).
>
> If you can be that 'someone' (I hope *you* have enough access rights?)
> then please do so, I'll start hacking on the backend and will not waste
> the subscribers' time until I have something to show them. Thanks in
> advance.

Actually, Dave is just finishing that up now for you ... just confirmed
with him that it wasn't something else he was dumping, so it should be
available momentarily ...

----
Marc G. Fournier           Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org           Yahoo!: yscrappy              ICQ: 7615664

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy@postgresql.org]
> Sent: 16 January 2004 16:51
> To: Alexey Borzov
> Cc: pgsql-www@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [pgsql-www] Requirements for updated site
>
>
> Actually, Dave is just finishing that up now for you ... just
> confirmed with him that it wasn't something else he was
> dumping, so it should be available momentarily ...

Unfortunately I don't have time to clear our the docs etc right now
(pg_dump won't selectively mix schema only and data + schema tables).
The entire dump can be downloaded from:

http://www.postgresql.org/www.sql.bz2

It's about 7.8MB so isn't exactly huge...

/D