RFC: Proposed new web site design

[Jeremy White]

Thanks for all the feedback, folks; I have to admit that was a bit
overwhelming.  I've read through it all, and have tried to digest it, below.

But I think there is a strong sense here that no one likes a web site
designed by committee.  Given that, I think the plan will be to adjust
based on feedback, and then go forward.  After all, once we take it
live, patches will still be accepted <grin>.

Here is the digest of comments as I saw them:

  1.  Folks are basically cool with the CodeWeavers positioning;
      there is some thought we should even provide more
      information and linkage to our compatibility database.
      (I think we'll baby step with what we have now).

  2.  Lots of people hate the secondary scroll bar.

  3.  People want a longer introduction to Wine.
      I think it needs to be short and sweet.  We'll noodle;
      suggestions welcome.

  4.  We should have hovers on the Wiki page (Jer is working on that).

  5.  Some folks found the grey text a bit hard to read.
      (I avoid color discussions like the plague; I think it's kind of
      like emacs vs vi.  I just report the news).

  6.  There was some agitation for more news, more description,
      and perhaps more visual elements, like a screen shot.

  7.  There is some concern as to Wine vs WINE
      I had raised this privately, and was given the back hand
      of the artiste.  I appreciate the work of the artiste,
      and so have backed off.

  8.  There were comments about the icons
      Some folks didn't like the download icon, some folks wanted
      the icons to pop more when hovered.  The artiste is chewing on it.


And then, finally, there were some comments on the main text points
themselves.  Notably, this one from Dan:

> About
> What is Wine, and why should I use it?

I think that's a good change.  In fact, I think we were so focused on
the visual elements that we didn't really spend a ton of time on the
words and they could be tweaked.

> 
> and we're missing the user task
> 
> Will my app work with Wine?
> 
> which should link to the appdb.
> 

I disagree with the second point.  I think the top level should remain
very simple.  The secondary pages can explain that Wine may not run
their application, and so the appdb should feature prominently in that
explanation.  But I think leading with it is part of the slippery slope
to too many links.

Cheers,

Jeremy