[theforum] back to basics

[Martin Burns]

On 17 Nov 2008, at 20:27, Tara Cleveland wrote:

> 2. I think all of the current designs are really unprofessional and
> not even close to the standard that evolt should have.

While none of them may be a silver bullet, I think we're at risk of  
Waiting for Godot.

> In fact, I'd
> say that none of them are any better than what is there now and it's a
> waste of time trying to implement them.

Nope, disagree.

And tbh, all the criticisms that you/erika expressed in #evolt over my  
design were minor tweaks, rather than ripup/start again.

> 4. we need to nail down what we are going to launch in the redesign.
> Are we adding a new design to planet.evolt.org and saying that's an
> official part of what evolt is? Are we adding new features? google
> maps thingy? does that have to be part of it? what the other features
> we want? Designing an IA and a visual design for a moving target is
> pretty difficult - especially if it's changed daily and there are no
> actual *decisions* just new suggestions.

Well, my proposal hasn't changed since the day I wrote it. And much of  
it was based on ideas that had been kicking around as "good things"  
for a lot longer.

Maps being the primary example - we'd had the idea of that in the  
1990s and wanted to do it for ever, but a clean implementation, linked  
to site registration, was nigh-on impossible (Dean did a version that  
people could be plotted on a single image iirc, without zoom, and he  
had to manage it). Google Maps has given us all the Hard Stuff for free.

Being able to find similar/linked articles that went beyond simple  
categories was another.

> Can we write and decide upon a document that says what the hell we are
> aiming on launching instead of coming up with loads of new features

*cough*
http://weo.easyweb.co.uk/colophon
*cough*
as a starter.

Cheers
Martin

--
 > Spammers: Send me email -> yumyum at easyweb.co.uk to train my filter
 > http://dspam.nuclearelephant.com/