Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


One thing that I was going to mention (my main reason for joining this list actually) is the inconsistency between the application descriptions on the Why for...? pages.

Take Impress - described as a "A presentation", "Presentation" and "Presentation manager" on different pages. If we're describing the application, it should be something like Presentation manager or Presentation software, rather than just Presentation. That would describe the document produced by it. Same for the spreadsheet - Calc is a spreadsheet package, spreadsheet program and a spreadsheet application but is not a spreadsheet.

Then on the Why for NFPs and NGOs page, it describes tasks that the suite can do. "Word processor" is not a task nor is "Diagramming and charting tool". Better to make it like the other pages, and describe the applications contained within the suite IMO.

Clayton makes some good points about the need to get these right - this is where we're trying to sell the application to new users, so if it doesn't read right then we'll end up putting people off.

Jaxson Lee

On 30/01/2011 16:02, Clayton Walker wrote:
Alright, cool.

Onto some critics, not so much ideas.
First off, my eyes just glazed over. I can't read walls of text. Inset
images are always nice, as long as they aren't too obtrusive and obscure. I
can provide screen shots from a Mac, as I'm using one now.
Speaking of which, another huge point would be cross platform support, that
is after all one of our larges selling points (next to the fact that it's
free.)
Also, an interesting Idea would be to just list VERY short bullet points,
maybe with tiny graphics included.

Just some ideas.


On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 4:51 PM, David Nelson<commerce@traduction.biz>wrote:

Hi Clayton, :-)

Initially, I'd suggest that you read the Features section of the site,
and the sub-pages about the individual LibreOffice applications. My 2
cents would be to adopt a similar style layout-wise, and a similar
writing style, too.

That way, all content would be consistent, with no "mini-revolutions"
in a small subset of pages. 90% of the rest of the site content was
provided by myself, and I proofread/edited the rest, so my
*suggestion* would be to do the "Why?" pages on similar lines.

At a later date, we'll be re-visiting the page layouts with the
involvement of our Design team. At that time, we can spruce the page
presentations up a lot.

However, if you have new ideas about style and layouts, please do tell
us about them, so that we can take a look at them all together,
because fresh input is always welcome.

In any case, like Frank Sinatra sang, just do it your way, and then we
can take a look all together after.

And a big thanks for your help! :-)

David Nelson

--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to 
documentation+help@libreoffice.org<documentation%2Bhelp@libreoffice.org>
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***





--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+help@libreoffice.org
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.