Comments on Python Redesign

Tim Parkin tim.parkin at pollenationinternet.com
Sun Sep 7 23:13:35 CEST 2003


Aahz:
> That said, there likely will be a subsection of python.org that is
> aimed at managers, with a more designed look and more graphics;
> someone trying to convince a specific manager could point zir into
> the subsection.

Fernando:
> A visible 'corporate' link, along with a single-level url
> www.python.org/corporate, perhaps even aliased to
> corporate.python.org) can satisfy the PHBs with minimal effort.

Please don't consider this, the majority of corporate users will find
the site themselves or through links in articles magazines, etc. so
they will still get first impressions from the main home page. If
anything we could provide a developer portal page which may be used
as a bookmark. Personally I think this is a bad idea also. What is
wrong with the information architecture / navigation on the page
proposal. Please could we move this discussion to one of the
appropriate lists aswell. I suggest python-marketing to begin with.

Fernando:
> That's why you really need to post a readable
> html site, not a png:  it's almost impossible for anyone but you to
> properly judge the site with graphical screenshots. It takes a long
time to create a professional html design that is cross browser to
the extent needed for this site and also as accessibile as possible.
I am unwilling to spend this amount of time just to get some feedback
on a design that might possibly be used. To give you an idea of how
much this HTML design would cost from a consultancy (which is what
pollenation is), calculate professional rates at approx thirty two
hours work (my guess, about £1,600 or maybe $2,500). Could someone
please explain why it's impossible to judge the design of the site
without it being rendered as HTML. Perhaps the accessibility / speed
needs HTML, but not the design. Do people feel that the design would
be impossible to create as a optimal HTML entity?

Fernando:
> And since the starting thread of the discussion was a post by Tim
> himself, that seemed a perfectly fair thing to do.  It may have been
> dragged here from elsewhere, but the first 'Comments ...' post was
> by Tim, and he's been responding in the discussion actively. 
> As long as the comments were civil
Actually the first post wasn't by me and I only saw it as it was
mentioned in my blog, at which point I subscribed to comp.lang.python.

Fernando:
> A basic rule of design should always be:  a default (www.python.org)
> value should satisfy the _majority_ of usage cases (not those with
> the most money/corporate power/whatever).  Since the majority of
> visitors to the site can arguably be thought to be developers,
> _that_ is the audience the default url should target. No, a basic
> rule of design is to create something that satisfies the brief. In
this case the brief is to provide a site whose default view provides
a developer friendly page but with a heavy marketing bias. As long as
the page still satisfies the information needs of the developer then
it satsifies the brief.

David Eppstein:
>"rightly jumping all over the design"
Why are they rightly jumping all over it? Is this the purpose of
discussion? I would say people should be "right providing
constructive feedback".









More information about the Python-list mailing list