New XH site design + new logo

[svasti]

Hi everybody,

you may have noticed that the official cmsimple-xh.org site looks a little different since some time.
The wiki also got a similar look and the demo default template too.

If you have some suggestions for improvement, you are welcome.
Tata once had a nice idea for a completely different set up, unfortunately that would have meant rewriting the content, so it didn't happen.

The new logo is just a suggestion: one from svasti and one from oldnema.

svasti

[cmb]

Thanks a bunch for the work you've put into it! I'm pretty happy with the results[1], albeit not with the lack of response...

One minor issue: the Wiki displays a very long footer -- is that intentional?

[1] Compare that with http://web.archive.org/web/201307241333 ... le-xh.org/, for instance.

[svasti]

One minor issue: the Wiki displays a very long footer -- is that intentional?

Fixed.
I did it, because a short footer would let the lighter background of the page appear under the footer on short pages. Didn't really look nice.

The new trick is now, that everything goes into a "container"-div and the body gets the background color of the footer. This way the footer can remain small, and when pages are small, the color below the footer is the same as the footer.

[Holger]

Thanks a bunch for the work you've put into it! I'm pretty happy with the results

Me too
It's looking really much better than the old one. I like the colours and I think the logo is fine too.

If you have some suggestions for improvement, you are welcome.

One thing for now:
I think it's not the best solution to split all entries in "History_and_Changelog" to sub-pages.
Maybe it's a choice to write everything to only one or two pages, or a plugin like acDIVs might be a option.

Anyway, great work!

[bca]

Hi

albeit not with the lack of response...

In my opinion I feel it looks a bit old fashioned (sorry). The wiki looks a bit better.
Its not responsive and looks a real mess on my phone. I don't like the thin content column and two columns on right hand side.

I feel if you are trying to attract new users the site must look a bit more modern eg (dare I say it) the joomla site, the drupal site or a typical wordpress site.

Sorry but you were concerned at the lack of response

B

[cmb]

Sorry but you were concerned at the lack of response

No need to apologize -- constructive criticism should always be welcome.

Its not responsive and looks a real mess on my phone.

The former might not be a problem (even if it seems to be best practice nowadays), but the latter definitely is. I have double-checked the site on my Android 7" tablet and with Opera Mobile Emulator for small screen resulotions, and it is okay. Would be great if you can post a screenshot or at least describe what happens on your phone. Making the site work better on phones might be merely a matter of adding a meta viewport element. However, adding some appropriate media queries would be a bonus.

I feel if you are trying to attract new users the site must look a bit more modern eg (dare I say it) the joomla site, the drupal site or a typical wordpress site.

Um, perhaps they're spending too much time on their websites instead of the software. Kidding aside: of course these sites are really great (besides the Drupal site took 7 seconds to load completely, for the second request), and IMO we should catch up as far as our limited resources allow. However, I'm still convinced that the new design is already a great improvement.

I don't like the thin content column and two columns on right hand side.

Indeed, the content column is rather small (I assume you're referring to its width), but IMO it's not too small for text (about 60 characters). I would prefer full justifcation, though, but that would probably mean to add a lot of ­s (I'm not sure if hyphens is already usable; might be worth trying).

[bca]

Its not responsive and looks a real mess on my phone.

Just went to get a screenshot and its ok today. So sorry about that. Last night it was all over the place. Must have been my phone.
Although, saying that, i've just tried Chrome's Web developer plugin on 320x480 and that shows what my phone showed last night.


b

[cmb]

Although, saying that, i've just tried Chrome's Web developer plugin on 320x480 and that shows what my phone showed last night.

I have to admit that that doesn't look nice, to say the least -- thanks for the pointer. It is, by the way, the same in FF's web developer addon.

[svasti]

I think it's not the best solution to split all entries in "History_and_Changelog" to sub-pages.
Maybe it's a choice to write everything to only one or two pages, or a plugin like acDIVs might be a option.

done. Makes page loading a little slower, but otherwise looks much more orderly. Also the links to certain acDIVs (from the newsboxes) work nicely.

looks a bit old fashioned (sorry).

The present format is quite similar to the one we inherited from Gert. I didn't want to change to much all at once. True, doesn't look that modern. The style "header -- 3 colums -- footer" is really old school.

Its not responsive

Actually it is optimized for 6 screen sizes and got 5 @media screen queries, for 1040-1210, 1211-1300, 1301-1369, 1370-1400. I have two 1200 x 1600 screens, and it looks okay on such a screen, or even on a 1920px wide one.

looks a real mess on my phone

I haven'd been into smartphones (but I must admit, I have already been asked for smartphone optimized websites). Didn't expect surfers coming with a smartphone. Do you mean the site should show something intelligible on 320 x 480?

The website is a work in progress, text and looks keep evolving. Just moving in small steps. Thanks anyway for all the input. I actually also find that the wiki came out quite good. As our point is simplicity, the website may evolve in that direction. Joomla and droopal have great websites, I personally however find them a bit overloaded.

[cmb]

I think it's not the best solution to split all entries in "History_and_Changelog" to sub-pages.
Maybe it's a choice to write everything to only one or two pages, or a plugin like acDIVs might be a option.

done. Makes page loading a little slower, but otherwise looks much more orderly. Also the links to certain acDIVs (from the newsboxes) work nicely.

All in all it's an improvement IMO. However, when JavaScript is disabled the headings are a bit inconspicuous and the links from the newsboxes don't really work. While this may be acceptable, it seems the links in the newsboxes have to be manually adjusted for every new entry, because they're numerically ordered from top to bottom.

I didn't want to change to much all at once.

ACK.

Actually it is optimized for 6 screen sizes and got 5 @media screen queries, for 1040-1210, 1211-1300, 1301-1369, 1370-1400.

I haven't even noticed that. Great!

I haven'd been into smartphones (but I must admit, I have already been asked for smartphone optimized websites). Didn't expect surfers coming with a smartphone. Do you mean the site should show something intelligible on 320 x 480?

Well, it's not only about smartphones, but rather tablets and phablets as well. It seems to me particularly the latters might cause a shift in usage of websites, so it seems prudent to cater for them (especially, if the framework is already in place). Actually, I can't give any concrete suggestions, but I really prefer http://m.wikipedia.org over http://wikipedia.org on my 7" tablet.

The website is a work in progress, text and looks keep evolving. Just moving in small steps. Thanks anyway for all the input. I actually also find that the wiki came out quite good. As our point is simplicity, the website may evolve in that direction. Joomla and droopal have great websites, I personally however find them a bit overloaded.

ACK.