faq
flatforty
contribute
subscribe
configure
search
rdf
main
parent
thread
|
Re: Looks ok
by Martin on Sunday 02/Mar/2003, @01:04
|
Gnome.org? You can't really mean that random mix
of colors and font-sizes? As someone who is working
as a website-designer I sometimes wonder why
Linux users often do not even _see_ how horrible
some designs are. But, perhaps that's why lots
of people wear clothes that look like s#+# even
if they could easily afford better-looking ones:
They actually think they are looking great...
The IRC application KVirc, i.e., is an extremly good
program. But the user-interface: Yuk! But probably
they are even thinking they did a really cool job.
Mmm, fortunately with KDE there is some hope.
That's why I like the KDE project.
KDE.org now looks very clean and stylish. KDE 3.1 itself
with Crystal or Noia icon set is light years ahead
compared to Gnome not only in graphics-design but
also in interface-design. Finally there is some
professionalism in the design of open source software,
BTW, Gnome.org uses Times as a font. When will this
ever stop? Look at Microsoft.com, Sun.com, Corel.com, Adobe.com, etc.
Nobody uses Times. Why not? Well, a font with serifs is not
suitable for the internet. That's why M$'s web-fonts are only
with out serifs (the little bars at the end of each letter).
A font like Times doesn't fit into a well-designed modern look.
That shows that Gnome.org is not really made by a professional designer. |
|
|
The Fine Print: The following comments
are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
Re: Looks ok
by foo on Sunday 02/Mar/2003, @01:24
|
Yes I meant gnome.org. It has a plain white background, the text is normal, it just looks plain. And (again I say IMHO) plain is good for me. Personally I prefer fonts like Times - you say it's not suitable for the internet, but I like it, and as far as I know, I'm using the internet and looking at webpages right now. Therefore it must be suitable for some people :-/
I won't comment on clothes, it's not really relevant. But for user interface design I will say this: icon themes, window manager themes, widget themes etc. don't really amount to much. They are only important when the applications themselves have decent interfaces (layout, placement, interaction). But unfortunately there are far too many apps for KDE and GNOME and whatever else that have awful, cheap, hacked-together interfaces. No amount of themes and icons can change or mask this. Of course this isn't exclusive to KDE.
Anyway, I looked at the KDE website again - it looks worse than it did the first time! Looks cheap to me. Large sans-serif fonts look cheap to me. Search button on the right is too wide. Bla bla bla... just in my eyes. Seeya.
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Looks ok
by Travis Emslander on Sunday 02/Mar/2003, @18:33
|
I agree with this poster. The new KDE site is using way too large of fonts. It really looks messy. The big blue headers everywhere also are a bit much, perhaps if they were just that blue color as a border, than the gray color within it would look better.
Anyways, it's not terrible, it's very nice. I especially like the new logo up in the header area, very tasteful.
As for the guy who seems to know what everyone should be wearing and what fonts need to be used for web sites, give it a break buddy, it's called taste. You can say everyone who's taste differs from your own is tasteless, but that'd make you an idiot. Although I agree that sans serif looks better, if it was meant to be the font used on the internet, then why when not specifying a font does it default to serif?
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
Re: Looks ok
by Jim Dabell on Monday 03/Mar/2003, @02:38
|
"The new KDE site is using way too large of fonts."
It uses the font-size configured in your browser. If you don't like it, configure your browser the way you want.
"Although I agree that sans serif looks better, if it was meant to be the font used on the internet, then why when not specifying a font does it default to serif?"
Probably because that's a decision made for mosaic, and every mainstream browser since then has put far too much effort into retaining the default look of existing browsers.
There are legitimate reasons for choosing serif over sans-serif and vice-versa, that don't have anything to do with style. Where they can be rendered appropriately, serif fonts are quicker to read. However, at low resolutions or small sizes, serifs cannot be rendered well, and sans-serif is quicker to read.
(Can't seem to choose HTML as an encoding option at the moment, sorry for the formatting).
|
[
Reply To This | View ]
|
|
The Fine Print: The previous
comments are owned by whomever posted them.
( Reply )
|
|
![[KDE Dot News]](http://www.kde.org/dot/Images/kdedotnews.gif)
