Website Review and Suggestions

**danielcer** · 09:07 PM

I'd like to get your feedback on a structured wiki for web developers.

<edit version 4 1/9/2009> -

In response to some off thread suggestions, I refined the landing page once again. However, this time only with minor tweaks.

The latest version up for review can be found at:

http://www.appliedstacks.com/newlanding2/

It's ancestors are v3 @ http://www.appliedstacks.com/newlanding1/, v2 @ http://www.appliedstacks.com/newlanding0/, and of course the original version of the landing page currently up at http://www.appliedstacks.com/.

Please, post any comments or other feedback on the updated layout. Again, all of the advice so far has been very helpful.

</edit>

The purpose of the site is to document the languages, frameworks, libraries, and other software components that were used to build specific websites. The site exists to raise awareness of all of the diverse tools that are available to web developers. In doing so, it's hoped that developers will be better connected to the tools that both fit their needs and fit well with the other software components they're using. The site encourages component advocacy by example. That is, if you'd like to convince other people of how great your favorite language/framework/etc. is, then one of the most convincing and least obnoxious ways to do so is by pointing people towards something useful or interesting you built with it.

While I know the graphic design work is a little low rent, when reviewing the site, it would be great if people could focus on usability and functionality issues. For instance, I'd like to know if people find the overall user interface, component browsing and site submission process intuitive, and if there are any useful features you'd like to see added (e.g., tool usage trends). It would also be great to hear about content and content-coverage issues. That is, let me know about any additional software components people would like to see represented in the wiki, as well as any components for which you'd like to see more sites.

Thanks!

-Dan

**danielcer** · 01-06-2009, 08:03 AM

There is one thing I wanted to add.

The site uses a number of javascript effects. It would be good to know if anybody has problems with these on any particular browser+platform.

**AD7863** · 01-06-2009, 04:16 PM

Nice website, no problems with the java for me

**kingofsanda** · 01-07-2009, 12:34 AM

Although the site is functional I must say that I do not like the design I think the site would look much better if you got a professional template.

**antirem** · 01-07-2009, 12:38 AM

Im just not a big fan for it.. i really dont like the bricks.. (sorry)

**danielcer** · 01-07-2009, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by antirem

Im just not a big fan for it.. i really dont like the bricks.. (sorry)

Like I said the graphic design is currently not particularly glamorous. But, right now I'm much more concerned about usability, functionality, and desired content coverage.

However, if anybody really wants to comment on the graphic design (you know, just to get it out of their system

), could you also post what browser you're using?

That is, the bricks are only a really-visible/salient part of the layout on ie6. In all other browsers, there's just a 10px red border on the left and right hand sides of the content area that has a fairly faint brick outline (much lighter than what ie6 users see).

**editme** · 01-07-2009, 08:45 AM

Daniel,

The site is a great idea. Works fine for me (FF3). I'm going to go ahead and echo the design fail. Early adoption in a wiki is key - and you've stated that as one of your initial goals... people are MUCH more likely to contribute to a wiki that looks good. Many folks will just pass a site like this as soon as they see it. If you want it to really fly, it's worth some design investment.

Also, if you haven't yet, check out the Wiki Patterns site - lots of good info on what to do and not do when starting out a wiki project.

**danielcer** · 01-07-2009, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by editme

Daniel,
Also, if you haven't yet, check out the Wiki Patterns site - lots of good info on what to do and not do when starting out a wiki project.

Thanks, for the pointer to Wiki Patterns. I wasn't aware of the site and it looks like a fantastic meta-resource.

As for the graphic design issues, are there any small to medium sized changes that people could suggest to make things more palatable? Or, is the advice ultimately to just find a way to put together enough money to hire a graphic designer?

The project is being done on a very shoestring budget, so I'd prefer being able to delay the latter for at least a little while. And, I know graphic designers loathe people who come to them a say things like "hey, I have the great idea, but not much money....could you..ah..give me deal?"

**cassclark** · 09:08 PM

Guys, are we looking at the same website? The site isn't great GD-wise but it's not terrible either. If anything, it’s mostly just plain, kind of like craigslist, but with some color

.

I was looking through the rest of the sites up for review here, and it boggles the mind. There are threads were people keep on complementing awful awful sites. There are good sites, but some just look like bad junk mail flyers, and are just as static too. Others look like the misshapen offspring of the former and a parody of Web 2.0, absolutely drenched in smooth gradients, not a single corner left unrounded, strange lighting, gloss and reflections on everything.

Don’t get me started on the comments either. Daniel, be careful of whose advice you take. Open up some of the sites in Kingofsand's sig. See that, yeah? If I were you, I won't want any of my sites to look like that either.
</rant>

I like the idea of the site. With all the work it looks like you put into it, I think it deserves at least a couple useful reviews other than “it sucks, ‘cause i don't like bricks”.

First off, I again really like the idea, and the zoom-able thumbnails on the landing page and in the search results are a nice touch.

Now, for what I don’t like. The tag cloud looks way way too big. Its background color isn’t good on my desktop’s LCD (too bright/too yellow). It’s fine though on my cheapie Dell laptop, so you’ll probably want to look at the site on another system. The zoomed thumbnail borders on the main page are too tight. This is particularly apparent for sites with titles that take up more than two lines. Having the 5-bullet guide on the top of the edit page makes things look crowded. Try moving it elsewhere. The editing page is probably the least attractive template on the site. See what you can do there with changing the color of the blue on the developer’s notes box.

Good luck and I’ll see if I can add a few of my sites to the wiki.

**danielcer** · 01-07-2009, 11:46 PM

Thanks for the detailed review cassclark.

I really appreciate it.

**danielcer** · 01-08-2009, 04:56 AM

I put together a new landing page and I'd to get people's feedback on it.

You can take a look at it here: http://www.appliedstacks.com/newlanding0/

Do people find this layout more attractive? That is, should I replace the old layout with this one?

**sunsiena** · 01-08-2009, 09:32 AM

It takes quite a lot of time for the homepage to download, and there is very little text on the start page.

**danielcer** · 01-08-2009, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunsiena

It takes quite a lot of time for the homepage to download, and there is very little text on the start page.

Thanks for looking at the site sunsiena.

With the current landing page, there's actually quite a bit of text there. It's just that it's buried under the 'new additions' block. So, it's understandable that someone would miss it.

Did you have a chance to glace at the new layout for the landing page?
It's posted at:

http://www.appliedstacks.com/newlanding0/

**danielcer** · 01-09-2009, 05:29 AM

Since I don't want to crowd the edited post above, I'm putting some additional information on the third version of the layout here.

The new version has the following improvements:

* There are no longer vertical scroll bars on displays that are 1024 px wide.
* To improve readability, the font size of the site header, slogan, and body text was increased (with the body text now at 12pt).
* The quantity of body text was reduced by making it more concise and to the point.
* Since many people disliked the bright yellow tag cloud, I changed the color to what is hopefully a more pleasant shade of blue.
* The tag cloud was enhanced so that each tag's font shade of blue correlates with its size.
* The previously low sitting text in the navigation menus was shifted up.
* For emphasis, a bubble was added around the number of sites documented.

If people have time for it, I'm looking forward to any additional advice they might have.

**cassclark** · 01-10-2009, 03:39 AM

Comparing v4 and the first version is like night and day. Good job.

My only grip is that I don't like how bright the navigation links are now. It seems jarring.

**liquide** · 01-10-2009, 11:31 AM

At first when i checked site, i was amazed. I was thinking many times what does some sites consist of. Well design is not the big thing. I like the concept of the site, great job, and as i said make more stunning design!

**danielcer** · 06:03 PM

I'd like to thank everybody for their reviews. It's been very helpful.

I think the new design has stabilized enough that I updated the live version of the site with the new v4 landing page.

Thanks again.