[ubuntu-art] Kubuntu.org look - really not a feast for the eyes

[Kenneth Wimer]

Hi Martin,

We are talking around each other and actually agree, let me explain  
what I meant.

On Jul 2, 2006, at 11:22 PM, Martin B. wrote:

> As for the articles contained therein: I think that the content is  
> not really in our hands, nor should it be (or we'd call this list  
> something other than -artwork) :-)
>
> I think the articles should be made by the doc team hand in hand  
> with the artwork team. Web pages are not documentation, the visual  
> appearance is as important as the content (IMO). Furthermore, the  
> visual style and content cannot be made separately, because it  
> complements one another (at least here, in a visual presentation of  
> a product).
>

The text in the articles, and the selection of articles is up to a  
different team. The design and layout of those articles is certainly  
our business.

> Specific things that come to my mind when I look at the page:
>
> If I compare ubuntu,kubuntu,edubuntu and xubuntu web pages, xu,edu  
> and ubuntu pages have a main page fully for the introduction to the  
> distribution. Xu, edu and ubuntu do all have a "Related projects"  
> box. Kubuntu does not. (OK, that's more about the content of the  
> page.)
>

Actually, I think that if anyone made it to this website, they have  
at least some inkling of what to expect. Having current items  
displayed shows, in my eyes, that things are "moving right along".

I do agree that a related projects box would be good though.

> The "konqis"  image is in my opinion completely redundant. It looks  
> more like an image from a fairy tale, not from a professional Linux  
> distribution. Maybe a screenshot on the main page would be more  
> informative?
>

100%

> I think the titles and all font sizes could be adjusted to make the  
> page more structrured. The number of visual elements is very small  
> ( no coloured wrappers for content, titles as images etc.) , the  
> white space looks more "empty" to me.
>

Definitely.

> Martin
>

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Bye,
Ken