[Imc-alternatives] DESIGN: log of wireframe irc chat, May 4

[lancaster-imc at riseup.net]

I will summarize the wireframe agreement points as I said I would, post
them to the list as well as to the crabgrass group, hopefully tonight. mV

> Hi,
>
> Nick, Michael and I just had a really good IRC meeting to start
> coming to agreement on wifeframes for the alternatives site.  Here is
> the log.  We were mainly looking at Nick's proposed wireframes, which
> are linked as attachments on the "wireframes" page of the
> imc-alternatives group on Cragbrass (we.riseup.net), and going
> through them top to bottom to come to some kind of agreement on
> layout.  We didn't get all the way through so we're going to keep
> communicating via e-mail, trying to hammer out something this
> week.  If you want to participate let us know.
>
> Jay
>
> Session Start: Sun May 04 21:02:57 2008
> Session Ident: #alternatives
> Session Close: Sun May 04 21:02:57 2008
>
> Session Start: Sun May 04 21:02:57 2008
> Session Ident: #alternatives
> 03[21:02] * Now talking in #alternatives
> 01[21:03] <Jay> Hi folks.
> [21:03] <nicklally> Hello! Shall we start?
> 01[21:04] <Jay> Sure!  You're here, Michael, and Querty...?  Davo...?
> [21:04] <@davo> hello
> [21:04] <@davo> at work but here
> [21:05] <nicklally> OK. Michael--can we add your wireframe to crabgrass?
> [21:07] <nicklally> hopefully michael will come back to use here
> [21:07] <nicklally> any initial thoughts jay?
> [21:08] <michaelv> yes, working on it
> [21:08] <nicklally> oh, cool. hi.
> [21:09] <michaelv> I will add it as it, have not fixed the bottom,
> and don't know yet how to use gimp to create the kinds of wireframes
> you and nick made--too many years of photoshop
> 01[21:09] <Jay> Thoughts about Michael's wireframe or in general?
> [21:09] <nicklally> well, i'd like to see its current version first.
> [21:10] <nicklally> in general, i like a lot of the ideas we've been
> throwing around.
> [21:10] <nicklally> tabs, menus up top, simplified navigation,
> simplified layout, etc
> [21:11] <nicklally> i've never worked on layout with others not in
> the same room, but i think we're on the same page with a lot of this
> stuff and i'm excited to see what we come up with.
> [21:13] <michaelv> ok, I put it up, not much different as I had a
> weekend full of kids, etc
> [21:14] <nicklally> ok, i'm seeing it now.
> [21:14] <michaelv> and so mainly it is still the top block idea yahoo-like
> [21:14] <michaelv> somehow the right feature text did not compress,
> but oh well. I will fixt that later
> [21:14] <michaelv> I will add more to the bottom, and such next few days
> [21:14] <michaelv> I pulled this from a website called coda coza
> [21:15] <michaelv> liked certain layout aspects of it
> 01[21:15] <Jay> I'm looking on the crabgrass wireframe page. Is that
> where you put it?
> [21:15] <nicklally> i like the menu being at the top and the easy
> access to categories
> [21:15] <michaelv> I think..yes
> [21:15] <nicklally> yeah, at the bottom of attachments
> [21:15] <nicklally> i think we should work on a more simplified menu
> [21:16] <michaelv> the categories, etc could have menus with
> sub-categories that pop up to the right next to the thumbnail features
> [21:16] <michaelv> yes, definitely, just putting text to fill the space
> [21:16] <nicklally> and it's designed too wide. it's set for a 1024
> pixel monitor, but i think we should design at 800 pixels, which will
> change the layout space
> [21:16] <michaelv> the top horizontal should be compressed too
> [21:17] <nicklally> ok, i see. so a few would be main choices with
> sub-choices popping up.
> [21:17] <michaelv> I think it is for 800, but the background fits any
> screen
> [21:17] <nicklally> no, it's 1024
> [21:17] <michaelv> that's just my screen
> [21:17] <nicklally> the laptop i'm on is 1024 and it fills the screen
> [21:17] <michaelv> the top scrolling text is text I put in
> [21:17] <nicklally> the text does, that is. gray bar to gray bar
> [21:18] <michaelv> well, just a sample from a website I really liked
> for content layout
> [21:19] <michaelv> but I think it makes sense to have a website that
> can be good looking in many different screen widths
> [21:19] <nicklally> yeah, i like the way things are organized.
> [21:19] <nicklally> we could talk about whether or not we want a
> fixed width site, as opposed to a variable width site.
> [21:19] <michaelv> the "thumbs" features left of the main one could
> be clicked on, which would change the default feature
> [21:20] <nicklally> i tend towards fixed width as they maintain the
> integrity of the site design better
> [21:20] <michaelv> I think variable sites are better, especially for
> really small formats, like ipods
> [21:20] <nicklally> they usually don't shrink below 800 though, do they?
> [21:21] <nicklally> what's a good variable site to look at?
> [21:21] <michaelv> actually, in web design class we were taught to
> make websites fit all formats
> [21:21] <michaelv> including micro
> [21:21] <nicklally> i've also done some experimenting with iphones
> and fixed width sites look pretty good on them since they have the
> zoom function
> 01[21:21] <Jay> How much, if at all, with the size we design for
> affect the general layout?
> [21:22] <nicklally> i'd say a lot
> [21:22] <michaelv> I think it can be done with css, and there are
> probably pre-written codes that can be cut and pasted in to make it
> work, but I am not a web designer so I should be quiet on that issue
> [21:23] <michaelv> do we have an agenda?
> 01[21:23] <Jay> Ah, an agenda!  No, not really, but I'd say we
> should start by figuring out where we absolutely agree, move to where
> we generally agree, and then isolate points for discussion and see
> what we can get through.
> [21:24] <nicklally> ok, that sounds good
> [21:24] <michaelv> yes
> [21:24] <michaelv> agreed
> 01[21:24] <Jay> So, for example, we all agree on the basic concept
> of having the main site navigation up top, with text navigation at the
> bottom.
> 01[21:24] <Jay> (seem to agree.)
> [21:24] <michaelv> I agree
> [21:24] <nicklally> yeah, i like that
> [21:25] <michaelv> I like keeping people on the frontpage as much as
> possible, but also providing specific page sets for, say, categories,
> which are in the same format
> [21:26] <nicklally> yeah
> 01[21:26] <Jay> What else do we agree upon?  Do we agree that the
> main sections should be the core of the basic navigation up top, and
> each will lead to its own page.  Like News (front page),
> knowledge-base, wants/needs, networking.
> [21:26] <michaelv> Meaning, we want people to check out the content
> below the screen, but also navigate the site
> [21:26] <michaelv> my idea
> [21:26] <michaelv> is yes, do this
> [21:27] <nicklally> yeah, i like that. with the possibility of some
> sort of submenus being shortcuts.
> 01[21:28] <Jay> Very good.  Maybe we should all look at one of the
> sets wireframes for more ideas of what we all agree on.  I'd suggest
> we look at nick's because it's the most stripped-down.
> [21:28] <michaelv> also, I think it would be good if we had the main
> feature be able to unfold on the front page, which would cause people
> to read it, but also see other content that was hidden below the
> screen, and from there they would also get to these other parts of the
> site
> [21:28] <nicklally> can we think of the main subjects being "landing
> pages" or mini homepages?
> 01[21:28] <Jay> landing pages/mini homepages sounds good to me.
> [21:28] <nicklally> what do you mean by unfold?
> [21:30] <michaelv> hmm, like as if to say you read the abstract, and
> if you click on "read more.." the main article opens up on the front
> page, pushing the content below down? and this could be put back up
> the same way. this is like menues where you click on it and a
> sub-list pops down
> [21:30] <michaelv> does that make sense?
> [21:30] <nicklally> yeah, ok. i like that.
> [21:31] <michaelv> I just think it would cause people to see other
> frontpage content they might not have
> [21:31] <michaelv> by the typical click on the feature and be pulled
> away from the main page
> [21:32] <nicklally> or, if it become unfeasible, it should be at
> least a good summary with a read more link with other content being
> visible below without scrolling
> [21:32] <michaelv> yes, that too
> [21:32] <michaelv> that would be something no one has done, to my
> knowledge
> [21:32] <nicklally> articles expanding by clicking on them you mean?
> [21:32] <michaelv> at the bottom of the summary could be "read the
> full version" hyperlinked
> [21:32] <michaelv> yes
> [21:32] <nicklally> i've seen that with some mootools functionality
> [21:32] <michaelv> ok
> [21:32] <nicklally> so it's definitely doable with that framework
> [21:32] <michaelv> good, I was hoping so
> [21:33] <nicklally> i think we'll just have to pay attention to the
> accessibility options of adding a lot of javascript to the page, but
> we can figure that out later
> [21:33] <michaelv> this again would be a way to have lots of info,
> but compressed unless visitors click to expand
> [21:33] <nicklally> and yeah, jay, i think that's a good idea to move
> on to a wireframe as a starting poing
> [21:33] <@davo> http://www.fightdemback.org has this functionality,
> simple with javascript
> [21:33] <nicklally> yeah, michael, i definitely like that idea. and
> the tabs give a similar sort of functionality as well.
> [21:34] <michaelv> yeah, some of these ideas can be on the next version
> too
> [21:34] <michaelv> yes, definitely
> [21:34] <nicklally> good call davo
> [21:34] <@davo> doesn't take a whole library, unless you actually
> want to do an ajax call
> [21:34] <nicklally> hmmm.... yes. although we're not quite to the
> point of thinking about that yet. thanks for that link
> [21:35] <@davo> np
> [21:35] <michaelv> davo, thanks! that is exactly what I was talking about
> [21:36] <nicklally> ok, so another point we can agree on is exploring
> the possibility of adding javascript/ajax functionality to improve
> navigation and simplify the design.
> [21:36] <michaelv> I think having that sort of functionality will get
> people to see content they might overlook
> [21:36] <michaelv> yes, yes
> [21:36] <nicklally> is someone compiling these?
> [21:36] <@davo> also regarding social networking .. it would be worth
> checking out elgg.org and just plugging that into the authentication
> for instant social networking
> [21:36] <nicklally> it could be a good reference for later
> [21:36] <michaelv> I will compile the list later on
> [21:36] <nicklally> great, thanks!
> [21:37] <michaelv> and put it to the crabgrass as well as the listserve
> [21:37] <nicklally> great.
> [21:37] <nicklally> yeah, elgg looks like something to look into
> later as well.
> [21:37] <michaelv> have to look at that....
> [21:37] <nicklally> ok, wireframes. shall we look at them?
> [21:38] <michaelv> yes
> [21:38] <nicklally> ok, where to start?
> 01[21:38] <Jay> Yes yes.  Looking at Nick's right now, and thinking
> about it top to bottom.
> 01[21:39] <Jay> looking at nick's home page one
> [21:39] <nicklally> should we start with my home....
> [21:39] <nicklally> ok
> [21:39] <michaelv> ok
> 01[21:39] <Jay> We seem to agree on a logo in the top left with a
> bar stretching all the way across, so that goes on the happy list.
> 01[21:39] <Jay> I like the login/join/contact text in the top right.
> [21:40] <nicklally> that was one question i had. whether it should be
> like that, or like my other sketch where you can login from the
> homepage. thoughts?
> 01[21:40] <Jay> Actually, I was just going to suggest that. It's
> that way on your knowledge-base page and I like it.
> 01[21:41] <Jay> It gets the login visible but we don't have to use
> up space below.
> [21:41] <michaelv> I like the nav/categories on the left better,
> personally. I think people are used to looking left for menus
> [21:41] <nicklally> ok, i think it makes sense for usability to have
> it everywhere, but aesthetically, i like it a bit less
> [21:41] <michaelv> yes, and as with crabgrass, if you click on login
> the login/password boxes expand same bar
> [21:42] <nicklally> so you would put the category box left of the
> main articles?
> [21:42] <michaelv> that was what I was thinking, how does everyone else
> feel>
> [21:42] <michaelv> ?
> [21:42] <nicklally> one reason i like the categories on the right is...
> [21:43] <nicklally> that the big box on the left can contain info
> about the site, maybe the global map for the main homepage and
> landing page descriptions on the landing pages
> 01[21:43] <Jay> I'm still lagging behind in talking about the login,
> but we can shift to categories for a second...
> [21:43] <nicklally> to make it immediately clear what the site is
> about, since it's the first box you will see. that's my reasoning
> [21:44] <nicklally> oh yeah, i wasn't clear on which login style you
> like better michael.
> [21:44] <michaelv> ok, and considering the top block I put out we
> could save some content space by having "more featured" in the thumb
> format left or right of featured article
> 01[21:44] <Jay> I put the catgories on the left, but I like Nick's
> layout of having the nice big two-column main feature box at the top left.
> [21:44] <michaelv> I like the top right way you did it
> [21:44] <michaelv> I think that is best
> [21:44] <nicklally> on the homepage?
> [21:45] <nicklally> (because it's different on the other two)
> 01[21:45] <Jay> hmm.  It could be different on the home page,
> because we're more into the aesthetic impact....
> [21:45] <michaelv> yes, and also on other site pages, with the
> similar formats ofcourse
> [21:45] <nicklally> we're talking about the login, right?
> 01[21:46] <Jay> yes.
> [21:46] <michaelv> yes
> [21:46] <nicklally> i would argue that the header navigation should
> be the same throughout
> [21:46] <michaelv> I say keep it in the same place consistently
> [21:46] <nicklally> for ease-of-use
> 01[21:46] <Jay> Well, that does make sense.
> [21:46] <michaelv> yes
> 01[21:47] <Jay> Can you think of any sites you know with a login in
> the top right?  We can see how it looks in action.
> [21:47] <michaelv> side note: how does everyone feel about the
> scrolling banner idea I have, with headlines, alerts, etc? hyperlinked
> [21:47] <nicklally> rhizome.org
> 01[21:47] <Jay> Ah.  let me look.
> 01[21:47] <Jay> I think it's nice.  It doesn't get in the way of the
> look of things.
> [21:47] <michaelv> I like how phillyimc has a features box, but doing
> this helps save content and get feartures, networking, events, etc in
> one scrolling space
> [21:48] <nicklally> are we talking about the same thing?
> [21:48] <michaelv> oh, I had a side note
> [21:48] <michaelv> since we are at the top of the page
> 01[21:48] <Jay> I'm talking about the login.  We can talk scrolling
> thing next.
> [21:48] <michaelv> ok
> [21:48] <michaelv> agreed
> 01[21:49] <Jay> Michael, what do you think about the way the login
> looks at rhizome.org?  Top right seems like a nice place to me, and
> it can be consistent throughout the site.
> [21:49] <michaelv> looking
> [21:49] <michaelv> http://rhizome.org
> [21:50] <michaelv> what about having it the way Nick has it, but when
> clicked on it expands same line into "user name" password boxes?
> [21:51] <michaelv> once logged in it is simply "Log out"
> [21:51] <nicklally> i think we have to be careful about using too
> many expand features. especially with things that have to be tight
> graphically, like the header
> [21:51] <michaelv> or, we could use the power symbol for login?
> [21:51] <nicklally> power symbol?
> 01[21:51] <Jay> In theory I like that, but I'm a dummy when it comes
> to navigating web sites.  My eye knows the look of the two boxes,
> whereas I may miss the word "login"
> [21:51] <michaelv> ok, so what about having them same line, but smaller?
> [21:52] <michaelv> or just smaller, I like it up there in the top
> area, definitely
> 01[21:52] <Jay> My answer is pretty much the same, that the two line
> login is so standard that that's what I look for when I'm figuring
> out where to login. It can be small though.
> [21:53] <michaelv> I just think many sites use up too much room with
> the top bar area
> [21:53] <michaelv> it could be half that size and still fit the
> logo/graphic
> [21:53] <nicklally> i'm going to argue against making things small
> [21:53] <michaelv> have the height I mean
> [21:53] <michaelv> not too small
> [21:53] <michaelv> just smaller
> 01[21:53] <Jay> Not too small.
> [21:53] <michaelv> or on the same line
> [21:54] <nicklally> i would say it should be no smaller than rhizome,
> as that text is even getting on the small side
> [21:54] <nicklally> or, we could push it down to the categories box
> [21:55] <michaelv> I really like it up top like that
> 01[21:55] <Jay> Actually, I think top right is nice.  It really sets
> the login apart from other stuff on the page and says to the user
> "our priority is for you to join this site!"
> [21:56] <michaelv> for an example of what I was talking about, log
> out of crabgrass, then log in from the top menu bar
> [21:56] <nicklally> ok
> [21:56] <nicklally> oh yeah, that is snazzy
> [21:56] <michaelv> also says "username" and "password" by each box,
> which is useful
> [21:56] <michaelv> that was what I mean
> [21:56] <michaelv> meant
> 01[21:57] <Jay> That is snazzy.  But, on the we.riseup.net page
> there's a big login right there front and center.  So, I didn't even
> think of clicking on the text up top.
> [21:57] <nicklally> true
> [21:58] <michaelv> another login/out issue. should we direct people
> to this kind of login page when they log out, or keep them on the
> page they were on?
> [21:58] <nicklally> oh, that's a big one!!
> 01[21:58] <Jay> Maybe, for the sake of moving forward, we can all
> agree on a top right login and tinker with the size as the design
> develops.  We're only coming up with recommendations anyway and
> others may convince us all to try something else in a later version.
> [21:58] <nicklally> ok, yes. i like that jay
> [21:58] <michaelv> yes, I get side tracked easily, adhd and all
> 01[21:58] <Jay> :)
> [21:59] <michaelv> ok, so
> [21:59] <nicklally> me too!!
> 01[21:59] <Jay> So, let's talk about scrolling news.
> [21:59] <michaelv> we agree on login
> [21:59] <michaelv> yes
> [21:59] <nicklally> but i have time constraints tonight!!!
> [21:59] <nicklally> great.
> [21:59] <michaelv> well, moving along...:)
> [21:59] <nicklally> ok. i don't think we need to figure out where
> login takes you yet.
> [21:59] <michaelv> do we like it at the top
> [21:59] <michaelv> me either, just had a thought, hard to stop myself
> from typing because I can type so fast
> 01[22:00] <Jay> I actually am not a big fan of sites that scroll
> stuff automatically without my asking.  I think to be able to make that
> choice.
> [22:00] <nicklally> i think we should talk about it in the future,
> but i think making sketches of one or two pages will be an excellent
> way to get others involved in the process
> [22:00] <michaelv> sure, sounds good to me
> [22:00] <nicklally> what exactly are you referring to jay?
> 01[22:01] <Jay> I think Michael is talking about having a scroll bar
> with headlines?  Am I right about that?h
> [22:01] <michaelv> down the road when users can add or subtract
> features scrolling news feeds could be one
> [22:01] <nicklally> honestly i think there should be no scrolling,
> except for the main browser scrollbar
> [22:01] <michaelv> yeah, top top of page.
> [22:01] <michaelv> my idea was to have a way for different aspects of the
> site
> [22:01] <michaelv> networking, features, events, etc in one spot.
> 01[22:02] <Jay> I like the idea of people being able to choose to
> have the headlines run across, but to not have that be a default.
> [22:02] <michaelv> people might see something there and can click to it
> [22:02] <michaelv> that makes sense
> [22:02] <nicklally> oh, ok, that's a different type of scrolling.
> 01[22:02] <Jay> Right, we mean scrolling, not scrolling! :)
> [22:02] <nicklally> yeah, i'd say no for default as well
> [22:03] <nicklally> oh, right. i missed your intonation.  :D
> 01[22:03] <Jay> Is that another agreed point?  Offer options for
> lots of page customization later?
> [22:03] <michaelv> I agree, but I like the idea, so when it is
> available I will have it :)
> [22:03] <nicklally> sure
> [22:03] <michaelv> yes yes
> 01[22:03] <Jay> Great.  (sorry to keep moving us along like a drill
> seargeant, but we're moving!)
> [22:03] <nicklally> no, it's great jay!
> [22:03] <michaelv> yes, this is moving along good
> 01[22:04] <Jay> What about the "about indymedia submenu" nick has on
> his home page wireframe
> 01[22:04] <Jay> I kind of like it.
> 01[22:04] <Jay> It looks great on rhizome.org
> [22:05] <nicklally> i tend to always put about tabs on sites. i think
> it's important
> [22:05] <michaelv> yes, that is cool, lancasternews.com does that too
> on their front page
> [22:05] <michaelv> http://lancasteronline.com
> [22:05] <nicklally> yeah, some other indymedias do too
> [22:05] <michaelv> I think that is slick
> [22:06] <michaelv> instead of drowning out other content with pop down
> menus
> [22:06] <nicklally> i tend to click on people's about pages a lot,
> but i don't know if that's common
> [22:06] <michaelv> on the phillyimc site they are conflicked with the
> fearture videos too
> [22:06] <michaelv> I do too
> [22:06] <michaelv> and contact
> 01[22:07] <Jay> I always click on about pages, and contact.
> [22:07] <michaelv> I think "community" should be one of the top menu
> options too
> [22:07] <nicklally> what's the difference between that and network
> [22:07] <michaelv> can you sub-sub menus?
> 01[22:07] <Jay> Indymedia about pages and contact pages suck more
> often than not.
> [22:07] <michaelv> agreed
> [22:07] <nicklally> i would tend to vote against sub-sub, for
> ease-of-use and clarity
> [22:08] <nicklally> but it's probably possible
> [22:08] <michaelv> yeah, would actually get cumbersome
> [22:08] <michaelv> might be good in some instances, but not overdone
> 01[22:08] <Jay> So would it be an "about indymedia" about line or
> "about the alternatives site?"
> [22:08] <nicklally> so, i didn't think out my top menu buttons too
> much, so there's definitely room for refinement
> [22:08] <michaelv> just "about" would fit
> [22:08] <nicklally> that part i got straight from rhizome as an
> example that i liked.
> [22:09] <michaelv> there could be separate sub categories relating to
> indymedia, alternatives, etc
> 01[22:09] <Jay> Oh, we're talking top buttons?  Or the little about
> line like on rhizome?
> [22:09] <nicklally> i thought we were talking about the about/submenu box
> [22:10] <michaelv> looking at rhizome about submenu model
> [22:10] <nicklally> and yeah, i was thinking all those big buttons
> would have either submenu links that dropdown, or access to them on
> their landing pages.
> 01[22:11] <Jay> I think I understand.  Basically we're talking about
> using the same setup as in rhizome, with there being the main tabs
> over an "about the alternatives site text line," but when someone
> puts a mouse over a main tab, other options appear over the text
> line.  If that's what we're talkinga about, I'm game.  I like it.
> [22:12] <nicklally> and i think the buttons should be big:
> http://www.bnet.com/, http://www.grooveshark.com/
> 01[22:12] <Jay> I'm all for big buttons.
> [22:13] <nicklally> Yeah, that's what I was thinking, Jay. Although,
> not that i'm looking at my wireframe, it's starting to look too much
> like rhizome, at least the top part
> 01[22:14] <Jay> That's okay!  The graphics will be completely
> different of course, and I'm sure they'd steal from us if we came up
> with a good idea. :)
> [22:14] <nicklally> Ha!
> 01[22:15] <Jay> Michael, do you like that idea too?
> [22:15] <nicklally> although, i'm sure we could find a thousand
> models of the nearly identical layout... but it still feels a bit off
> [22:15] <michaelv> take a look at how http://lancasteronline.com does
> the menu sub menu thang
> [22:15] <michaelv> let me read back
> 01[22:16] <Jay> I think that's pretty cool too.  Basically the same idea.
> [22:16] <nicklally> Yeah. I might want to revisit this a little after
> this meeting... i need to think about this a little more.
> [22:17] <michaelv> I like how it is just text, but the way
> lancasteronline does it is cool too
> [22:17] <michaelv> literally looks like tabs
> [22:17] <nicklally> Can we have a quick discussion about layout. I
> don't want to rush, but I'm really itching to go here
> [22:18] <michaelv> ok
> [22:18] <nicklally> yeah, tabs are cool
> 01[22:18] <Jay> Sure.  We can also do as much as we can here and
> then continue this kind of conversation on e-mail.  We're getting
> into a pretty nice groove of communicating about things.
> 01[22:18] <Jay> So, talk layout.
> [22:18] <nicklally> i picture us using them on some of the bottom
> boxes, which i think was mentioned before
> [22:18] <michaelv> yes
> [22:19] <nicklally> yeah, i think this is a really good meeting! and
> i hate to rush it, but we can have more!!
> 01[22:19] <Jay> As for layout, one idea before we go too far...
> [22:19] <michaelv> and if we stay consistent between the top nav and
> other options people will move through the site better
> [22:19] <michaelv> they will know to click on other tabs too
> [22:19] <nicklally> true...
> [22:19] <nicklally> hmmm.....
> [22:20] <michaelv> which is why the lancasteronline format would work
> in this tabs conversatino
> 01[22:20] <Jay> One complaint I often have with IMC sites is that the
> "publish
> 01[22:20] <Jay> whoops...
> 01[22:20] <Jay> Publish button for the newsire is usually hard to find.
> 01[22:20] <Jay> so.
> 01[22:20] <Jay> so....
> [22:20] <michaelv> yes, very
> [22:20] <michaelv> we need to have a whole discussion on this issue, I
> think
> 01[22:20] <Jay> In looking at the indymedia.be site I liked their
> big "publish" button.
> [22:20] <nicklally> although, i think we can also have an hierarchal
> (gasp!) order of buttons that makes some more obvious
> 01[22:20] <Jay> Well...
> [22:20] <nicklally> which would be an argument against using the same
> kind of buttons throughout
> [22:21] <nicklally> yes, i like making big buttons, especially for
> stuff that we want to stand out
> 01[22:21] <Jay> My thought was to have a big "publish" button on the
> news page, a big "submit knowledge base articles" button on the
> knowledge page, a big "join" button on the networking page and a big
> "submit wants/needs" button on that page, all in the same place.
> [22:21] <nicklally> yeah, i like that.
> [22:22] <nicklally> something like that can go in the big featured box
> 01[22:22] <Jay> That would provide consistency and also say "we want
> you to participate!"
> [22:22] <nicklally> or, perhaps, in the category box
> [22:22] <michaelv> I like that idea, again consistency
> [22:22] <nicklally> either way, it will have ample room
> [22:22] <michaelv> and would draw eyes to look at the same area
> 01[22:22] <Jay> I was thinking, actually, of that going at the top
> of the category box (where nick has the categories, on the top right.)
> [22:22] <michaelv> template formatting
> 01[22:23] <Jay> I have that as part of my wireframes, so you can
> check out how it would look on each page.
> [22:23] <nicklally> yeah, either way could work. i guess it will
> depend on how we strategize the design. ie: whether the featured box
> is an "about this page/come join us" box, or if it's a "look at this
> featured article we want you to read" box
> [22:24] <michaelv> speaking about usability, and making things clear
> to new users..
> 01[22:24] <Jay> I think the former -- "look at this featured article."
> [22:24] <nicklally> jay--i think that could definitely be a good solution.
> 01[22:24] <Jay> That will provide a balance with the participatory
> aspects of the site.
> [22:24] <michaelv> I think having a "?" or other mini button next to
> things like "publish" that pop up a window describing what publish
> means makes sense too
> [22:25] <nicklally> yeah, i think we should all be thinking about
> these strategies. i know i need to think about them more, as they
> will really inform the design and layout
> [22:25] <nicklally> yes, help buttons are great
> 01[22:25] <Jay> I like help buttons too.
> [22:25] <michaelv> when I first discovered indymedia it was some time
> before I realized i could publish
> [22:26] <michaelv> I was used to being a consumer
> [22:26] <nicklally> i think we can really do a lot to make indymedia
> easier to use for new users. i imagine it can be intimidating!
> 01[22:26] <Jay> Yeah, that's a very consistent thing.
> 01[22:26] <Jay> Agreed.
> [22:26] <michaelv> it was very intimidating, esp once I got involved
> and starting reading the jargon
> [22:27] <michaelv> finding ways to use familiar terms will keep from
> isolating our collective and new users
> 01[22:27] <Jay> So let's get back to the publish/join buttons.  Do
> you think we should try them where they are on my wireframes?  I like
> the balance of the big two-column "look at this feature" box with the
> nice big "publish your feature" box on the top of the right column.
> [22:28] <nicklally> yeah, i like that.
> [22:28] <michaelv> let me look...
> [22:29] <nicklally> one thing i had a hard time conceptualizing is
> the placement of the select your country links. one place i thought,
> for the global site, would be a map (like michael described) that
> would be clickable/zoomable in the featured box.
> [22:29] <nicklally> then country sites could just have them at the
> bottom, like belgium
> [22:29] <nicklally> but i don't know if that's the best solution
> [22:30] <michaelv> yes, having a global map, where when you click on
> the region and it zooms would be sweet.
> [22:30] <michaelv> as for publish
> [22:30] <nicklally> and another question is: do we even need a global
> site? because the global site could just be a splash page that allows
> you to choose your country...
> [22:30] <michaelv> I like the idea you have Jay about having that and
> the other page set options being in the same place
> [22:31] <nicklally> but, i don't think we need the clickable map
> visible on the homepage of individual country pages
> [22:31] <nicklally> just the main page, because if you're at your
> country page, you're probably where you need to be
> [22:31] <michaelv> perhaps the word "publish" might be the problem
> for new users. Is there a word that would be better at encouraging
> people to publish articles?
> 01[22:32] <Jay> So, just to focus on the one thing first, we'll give
> the publish button a try at the top of the right column?
> [22:32] <michaelv> oh, the map I was thinking about was for a visual
> imc-cities map
> [22:32] <nicklally> yes, i like that jay
> [22:32] <michaelv> instead of the uber-long list of over 150 and growing
> 01[22:32] <Jay> Michael, you're right, "publish" may be hard to
> understand.
> [22:32] <michaelv> I have been contemplating a better way to word it
> [22:32] <michaelv> and it does not have to be in only one place either
> 01[22:32] <Jay> We don't need to come up with a different word right
> here, but yeah, let's think seriously about an easier way to put that.
> [22:32] <nicklally> could publish be accompanied by text to make it
> clearer? or, if someone has the word.
> [22:33] <nicklally> ok, yes.
> [22:33] <nicklally> i really have to go!!
> [22:33] <michaelv> could be a sub-menu option under "contribute" or
> "about"
> [22:33] <michaelv> ok nick
> [22:33] <nicklally> contribute is a good word!
> 01[22:34] <Jay> Sorry you have to go, but I think we got a great
> deal done?  Should we just keep this kind of talk going over e-mail,
> working from top to bottom of nick's wireframe, trying to come to
> agreemoent on each bit?
> [22:34] <michaelv> I like contribute as a menu tab, and donate,
> publish, volunteer could be sub menus.....so, I like your idea with
> the "publish button up top large and easy to see, however we word it
> 01[22:34] <Jay> I meant, I think we got a great deal done!
> [22:35] <michaelv> yes, nick, do you want to combine wireframes based
> on what we have all put together so far?
> [22:35] <nicklally> ok, why don't we talk about the number of columns
> [22:35] <michaelv> three?
> [22:35] <nicklally> real quick, and then we can refine wireframes
> this week and come up with new proposals?
> [22:36] <nicklally> so, my idea was to have two big columns up top,
> as the main things we want people to see, breaking into three columns
> below
> [22:36] <michaelv> I think three would be max, not all the same width
> 01[22:36] <Jay> I like the two at top/three below layout.
> [22:36] <michaelv> yes,
> [22:36] <michaelv> yes, me too
> [22:36] <nicklally> i like this site for their bottom layout a lot:
> http://www.bnet.com/
> [22:37] <michaelv> that was what I meant, was talking about below the
> main feature blocvk
> [22:37] <nicklally> things are separated with colors, real clearly.
> articles are just big headlines. i likes.
> 01[22:38] <Jay> It has the big top feature we've been talking about
> with the 1-2-3-4-5 options, which is nice.
> 02[22:38] * michaelv (michaelv at 2d9871.7eba51.78b577.dcaa48) Quit
> (EOF from client)
> 01[22:38] <Jay> I'm not so sure I like the colored boxes, but I
> could be convinced.
> 01[22:38] <Jay> I do like the separation the boxes creates though --
> again, simplicity.
> [22:38] <nicklally> oh, and i think many subpages could be two colums
> (see my knowledge section). individual articles and stuff...
> [22:39] <nicklally> yeah, well we can do all kinds of different
> color/no color mockups once we start designing
> [22:39] <nicklally> and individual countries will be able to easily
> change these aspects with a couple lines of css
> 01[22:40] <Jay> I see the two columns on the subpages.  I like that too.
> 03[22:41] * michaelv (michaelv at 2d9871.7eba51.78b577.dcaa48) has
> joined #alternatives
> [22:41] <michaelv> oye, screen crashed
> [22:41] <nicklally> welcome back michael!
> [22:41] <michaelv> hey
> [22:41] <nicklally> here's what you missed:
> [22:41] <nicklally> Jay: I'm not so sure I like the colored boxes,
> but I could be convinced.
> [22:41] <nicklally> [7:41pm] Jay: I do like the separation the boxes
> creates though -- again, simplicity.
> [22:41] <nicklally> [7:41pm] nicklally: oh, and i think many subpages
> could be two colums (see my knowledge section). individual articles
> and stuff...
> [22:41] <nicklally> [7:42pm] nicklally: yeah, well we can do all
> kinds of different color/no color mockups once we start designing
> [22:41] <nicklally> [7:42pm] nicklally: and individual countries will
> be able to easily change these aspects with a couple lines of css
> [22:41] <nicklally> [7:42pm] Jay: I see the two columns on the
> subpages.  I like that too.
> 01[22:42] <Jay> One thing I added to my wireframes, but I could take
> off for the sake of simplicity, is a nice big search box for each of
> the pages.  I like knowing how to search a page, and for us, giving
> people the ability to search the info is key.
> [22:42] <nicklally> ok, so what's our next step/tasks for this week?
> 01[22:42] <Jay> So, that's something to think about, not something
> we have to hash out here.
> 01[22:42] <Jay> Next steps.
> [22:42] <nicklally> well, generally, we need to refine these wireframes
> [22:43] <michaelv> ok caught up
> [22:43] <nicklally> and michael, you're going to put together a list
> of things we agree on?
> 01[22:43] <Jay> I think, if the rest of you are game, we could keep
> talking about nick's wireframes for the next couple days, going top
> to bottom, discussing things we agree upon and suggestions we have.
> 01[22:43] <Jay> via e-mail;
> [22:43] <nicklally> and maybe questions that remain open?
> [22:43] <michaelv> We need to refine the top block below the menu
> with sub menu, then figure out the three column content
> [22:43] <michaelv> yes, but I need the log sent to me
> [22:43] <nicklally> ok, that sounds good.
> [22:44] <nicklally> jay, do you want to email the log again?
> 01[22:44] <Jay> There may not be too many points we disagree
> upon.  Next may be a talk about categories and if we want to have
> them at the top right (below the "publish" botton) and, if not there,
> where?
> 01[22:44] <Jay> I can e-mail the log.
> [22:44] <nicklally> yeah, i think we could all come up with proposals
> for the main menu links and their submenu links
> [22:45] <michaelv> I think nicks wireframes with the yahoo feature
> thumbs would simplify discussion if we agree, otherwise they are
> mostly the same
> [22:45] <nicklally> we do have some outstanding questions, i believe
> [22:45] <nicklally> feature thumbs? lemme look at yahoo
> [22:45] <michaelv> but the way I have them on my wireframes mockup
> [22:45] <michaelv> when you click on the little thumbs on yahoo, they
> move to center
> [22:46] <michaelv> or default
> [22:46] <nicklally> the thumbs on the right top of their page?
> weather, news and such?
> [22:46] <michaelv> which is more in line with how you did the column too
> [22:46] <michaelv> yeah, the news block right of the left menu
> [22:47] <michaelv> the idea, but in the way I put it, which is along
> how you set up the top block too
> [22:47] <michaelv> simplifies the other features, keeps them up top,
> and encourages people to read more
> [22:48] <michaelv> I just think it is smart formatting
> [22:48] <nicklally> oh, the little images that turn that middle top
> block into the article that corresponds to the image??
> [22:48] <michaelv> yeah
> [22:48] <michaelv> the same idea
> [22:48] <nicklally> yeah, that's cool.
> [22:48] <michaelv> but within out context
> [22:48] <michaelv> that was what I meant by the little thumbs next to
> the large feature image
> [22:48] <nicklally> without context?
> [22:48] <nicklally> oh, i see.
> [22:48] <nicklally> i'll have to think about that one.
> [22:48] <michaelv> to our wireframes idea
> [22:48] <nicklally> gotcha
> [22:49] <michaelv> ideas
> 01[22:49] <Jay> So, we do have some outstanding questions, but we
> certainly agree on a lot of things.
> [22:49] <nicklally> ok, can we continue via email. i think we all
> have a lot to think about! i want to sit down and go through some of
> these ideas, the strategies that we talked about, and how our
> wireframes fit into that. what do others think?
> [22:49] <michaelv> see how that brings up the "other features" box up
> top, and we can get other content in the three columns below, such as
> networking, calendars, needs/wants, groups
> 03[22:50] * Retrieving #alternatives modes...
> [22:50] <nicklally> Yeah.
> [22:50] <michaelv> I agree, can you revise your wireframes with the
> ideas from mine and Jay's and this conversation?
> [22:50] <nicklally> i'll try!!
> [22:51] <michaelv> and I will summarize all of this once I get the
> log (tomorrow, it is getting late and I get up early
> 01[22:51] <Jay> Well, maybe just revise the top.  I think we have a
> few things to discuss on the bottom, below the big feature and the
> publish/join butotns.
> [22:51] <nicklally> if you send me our points of agreement and our
> question marks i'll do my best
> [22:51] <nicklally> yeah, i can also put together several versions
> that attempt to incorporate differing ideas
> [22:51] <michaelv> ok, then I will definitely go through the log
> tomorrow and put a summary together
> [22:51] <nicklally> i think it can help to have a visual aide for
> these decisions.
> 01[22:51] <Jay> Sounds really wonderful!
> [22:52] <michaelv> more visual than text?
> [22:52] <nicklally> ok, i'm going to run. thanks everyone for meeting
> and being so thoughtful about all these really difficult questions!
> 01[22:52] <Jay> I also think having a reference to websites that use
> the same trick is good too.
> [22:52] <michaelv> great meetup, can't wait till the next
> 01[22:52] <Jay> Yeah nick, thanks to you and Michael too!  This was
> really good.
> [22:52] <nicklally> oh, i meant having wireframe references to go
> along with our discussion
> [22:53] <nicklally> great, we'll talk this week via email! thanks
> guys, i'm outta here!
> 01[22:53] <Jay> Thanks!!
> [22:53] <michaelv> yep, take care you two and davo too
> 01[22:53] <Jay> I'll grab the log and post it to the e-mail
> list.  G'night everyone.
> [22:53] <michaelv> night
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imc-alternatives mailing list
> Imc-alternatives at lists.indymedia.org
> http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/imc-alternatives
>