Discussion:
IMHO Fossil needs renaming...
(too old to reply)
John Found
2011-03-02 15:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Hi all.
First mail to this mail list. Please forgive my audacity - fossil is simply gorgeous just like SQLite, but it need to be renamed as soon as possible. :)
My point is simple. IMHO, the name "Fossil" provokes some unpleasant associations and have not very propriate connotations.
The same can be said for Fossil Logo - it is dark and have veri grim look.

Just compare it with SQLite name and logo (btw - old logo and site of sqlite was better,now they are "heavy" :) )
Also look at other similar systems - "Bazaar" - makes allusion with crowds of developers. "Mercurial" - something very agive, quick, versatile.

The name is important for the future of the every project. And if the name have to be changed - it is good to be made in earlier stages of development.

So, mr.Hipp, please think a little about this arguments.

Best Regards
paolo lulli
2011-03-02 15:57:24 UTC
Permalink
I like both the name and the logo.

Regards,
P.
Post by John Found
Hi all.
First mail to this mail list. Please forgive my audacity - fossil is simply
gorgeous just like SQLite, but it need to be renamed as soon as possible. :)
My point is simple. IMHO, the name "Fossil" provokes some unpleasant
associations and have not very propriate connotations.
The same can be said for Fossil Logo - it is dark and have veri grim look.
Just compare it with SQLite name and logo (btw - old logo and site of
sqlite was better,now they are "heavy" :) )
Also look at other similar systems - "Bazaar" - makes allusion with crowds
of developers. "Mercurial" - something very agive, quick, versatile.
The name is important for the future of the every project. And if the name
have to be changed - it is good to be made in earlier stages of development.
So, mr.Hipp, please think a little about this arguments.
Best Regards
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Kristoffer Lawson
2011-03-02 15:59:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by paolo lulli
I like both the name and the logo.
I don't really mind the name. I think it works once you 'get' it. However I'd agree with the original poster that the logo could do with some spicing up. I think the form itself is fine, but it could just do with a bit of colour and detail.

Then again the same could be said for the default look of fossil webpages. They're mostly functional, but not hugely appealing.
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
Richard Hipp
2011-03-02 16:01:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Found
Hi all.
First mail to this mail list. Please forgive my audacity - fossil is simply
gorgeous just like SQLite, but it need to be renamed as soon as possible. :)
My point is simple. IMHO, the name "Fossil" provokes some unpleasant
associations and have not very propriate connotations.
The same can be said for Fossil Logo - it is dark and have veri grim look.
Just compare it with SQLite name and logo (btw - old logo and site of
sqlite was better,now they are "heavy" :) )
Also look at other similar systems - "Bazaar" - makes allusion with crowds
of developers. "Mercurial" - something very agive, quick, versatile.
The name is important for the future of the every project. And if the name
have to be changed - it is good to be made in earlier stages of development.
Unfortunately, the train has already left the station. Fossil has been
self-hosting since 2007 and parts of the code have been around for a year or
so prior to that. Fossil might seem like it is in "early stages of
development" to you, since you have only just now discovered it, but it has
been around for quite some time now. 3.62 years - which is like half an eon
in internet time, right?
Post by John Found
So, mr.Hipp, please think a little about this arguments.
Best Regards
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
***@sqlite.org
Gour
2011-03-02 17:22:56 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 11:01:48 -0500
Post by Richard Hipp
Unfortunately, the train has already left the station.
No matter where is the train, Fossil is not for those wanting nice logo
& name - it offers much more for those who can appreciate it. ;)


Sincerely,
Gour
--
“In the material world, conceptions of good and bad are
all mental speculations
” (Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu)

http://atmarama.net | Hlapicina (Croatia) | GPG: CDBF17CA
John Found
2011-03-02 18:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hipp
Unfortunately, the train has already left the station. Fossil has been
self-hosting since 2007 and parts of the code have been around for a year
or so prior to that. Fossil might seem like it is in "early stages of
development" to you, since you have only just now discovered it, but it has
been around for quite some time now. 3.62 years - which is like half an
eon in internet time, right?
I understand this. Actually 3..4 years are not so big time for so great peace of software.
I can remember how was renamed Firefox browser - you know it was Phoenix at the begining,
then it becomes Firebird and now it is Firefox. It is true - the reasons was different, but...
I don't think the site have to be fancy and bright. I only pointed the negative associations
that the name can induce in peoples minds.
Anyway. It is of course your project and your decision. I will use it widely in the future,
simply because it is exactly what I need for my projects.


---------- Original Message ----------
To: (fossil-***@lists.fossil-scm.org)
From: Richard Hipp (***@sqlite.org)
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming...
Date: 2.3.2011 18:01:48
Post by Richard Hipp
Post by John Found
Hi all.
First mail to this mail list. Please forgive my audacity - fossil is
simply gorgeous just like SQLite, but it need to be renamed as soon as
possible. :) My point is simple. IMHO, the name "Fossil" provokes some
unpleasant associations and have not very propriate connotations.
The same can be said for Fossil Logo - it is dark and have veri grim look.
Just compare it with SQLite name and logo (btw - old logo and site of
sqlite was better,now they are "heavy" :) )
Also look at other similar systems - "Bazaar" - makes allusion with
crowds of developers. "Mercurial" - something very agive, quick,
versatile.
The name is important for the future of the every project. And if the
name have to be changed - it is good to be made in earlier stages of
development.
Unfortunately, the train has already left the station. Fossil has been
self-hosting since 2007 and parts of the code have been around for a year
or so prior to that. Fossil might seem like it is in "early stages of
development" to you, since you have only just now discovered it, but it has
been around for quite some time now. 3.62 years - which is like half an
eon in internet time, right?
Post by John Found
So, mr.Hipp, please think a little about this arguments.
Best Regards
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
Higham, Paul
2011-03-02 19:49:00 UTC
Permalink
I like the name precisely because of its connotations. Fossil records
are kept in perpetuity, are affected neither by bad weather, fashion nor
by bad management; nothing but the act of an angry god will change them.

But the connotation has to be applied to the right thing. The intended
connotation is in regard to the way that Fossil treats the data that is
placed under its care, rather than the application itself.

Like rumours, connotations require little effort to generate and it
would be impossible to be consistent with all of them. Hopefully, as it
was with the iPad, the inappropriate ones will just fade away.

And as for the logo, it tells me that quality products will outlast
those of the insurance companies :)

Paul Higham
Tel +1 408 522 6225
***@sjm.com
-----Original Message-----
From: fossil-users-***@lists.fossil-scm.org
[mailto:fossil-users-***@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of John
Found
Sent: Wednesday, March 02, 2011 10:31
To: undisclosed-recipients
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming...
Post by Richard Hipp
Unfortunately, the train has already left the station. Fossil has been
self-hosting since 2007 and parts of the code have been around for a year
or so prior to that. Fossil might seem like it is in "early stages of
development" to you, since you have only just now discovered it, but it has
been around for quite some time now. 3.62 years - which is like half an
eon in internet time, right?
I understand this. Actually 3..4 years are not so big time for so great
peace of software.
I can remember how was renamed Firefox browser - you know it was Phoenix
at the begining,
then it becomes Firebird and now it is Firefox. It is true - the reasons
was different, but...
I don't think the site have to be fancy and bright. I only pointed the
negative associations
that the name can induce in peoples minds.
Anyway. It is of course your project and your decision. I will use it
widely in the future,
simply because it is exactly what I need for my projects.


---------- Original Message ----------
To: (fossil-***@lists.fossil-scm.org)
From: Richard Hipp (***@sqlite.org)
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming...
Date: 2.3.2011 18:01:48
Post by Richard Hipp
Post by John Found
Hi all.
First mail to this mail list. Please forgive my audacity - fossil is
simply gorgeous just like SQLite, but it need to be renamed as soon as
possible. :) My point is simple. IMHO, the name "Fossil" provokes some
unpleasant associations and have not very propriate connotations.
The same can be said for Fossil Logo - it is dark and have veri grim look.
Just compare it with SQLite name and logo (btw - old logo and site of
sqlite was better,now they are "heavy" :) )
Also look at other similar systems - "Bazaar" - makes allusion with
crowds of developers. "Mercurial" - something very agive, quick,
versatile.
The name is important for the future of the every project. And if the
name have to be changed - it is good to be made in earlier stages of
development.
Unfortunately, the train has already left the station. Fossil has been
self-hosting since 2007 and parts of the code have been around for a year
or so prior to that. Fossil might seem like it is in "early stages of
development" to you, since you have only just now discovered it, but it has
been around for quite some time now. 3.62 years - which is like half an
eon in internet time, right?
Post by John Found
So, mr.Hipp, please think a little about this arguments.
Best Regards
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Post by Richard Hipp
--
D. Richard Hipp
Mike Meyer
2011-03-02 18:25:55 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 2 Mar 2011 17:54:15 +0200
Post by John Found
Also look at other similar systems - "Bazaar" - makes allusion with crowds of developers. "Mercurial" - something very agive, quick, versatile.
Mercurial also means erratic, fickle, liable to sudden unpredictable
changes. You really want to trust your source code to that? And you
wisely didn't mention git.

My only problem with the name is that it's to common a word -
searching for info on fossil keeps turning up paleontological sites.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <***@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.

O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Ron Wilson
2011-03-02 18:57:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mike Meyer
My only problem with the name is that it's to common a word -
searching for info on fossil keeps turning up paleontological sites.
I was seeking an issue tracking solution that would not require a
server. At the time I figured maybe something based on SVN since it
can work with just a file server, so I searched for SVN issue tracker.
I found a few commmand line issue trackers built on SVN, so was
thinking I might have to enhance one of those to have a GUI. Then I
came across Fossil. Having all the hard work done, the ability to work
offline and the potential for true peer-to-peer operation sold me.

While it is somewhat obscure, it is far from being "below the radar".
While some people don't like Wikipedia, the issue tracker article was
near the top of the search results and the article on Fossil was only
2 levels below that. Also, searching for "fossil issue tracker" gave
the Fossil home page as the first result.

However, I have to admit I might not have looked at Fossil if I had
not been looking for a solution that required at most a file server.
Chad Perrin
2011-03-02 19:37:37 UTC
Permalink
My only problem with the name is that it's to common a word - searching
for info on fossil keeps turning up paleontological sites.
Try searching for "fossil scm". It works for me.
--
Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ]
Trou Macacq
2011-03-03 09:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Chad Perrin
My only problem with the name is that it's to common a word - searching
for info on fossil keeps turning up paleontological sites.
Try searching for "fossil scm". It works for me.
I think our goal here is to make a ballyhoo around fossil (the same way
how git quickly became popular some time ago), so 'fossil' keyword will
not lead to the paleontological sites at the first place.

And important step on this is to make website more stylish. Compare all
these:

* http://git-scm.com/
* http://mercurial.selenic.com/
* http://bazaar.canonical.com/

and please don't say that http://www.fossil-scm.org/ looks modern enough.

Design matters.
--
@macacq
Steve Dalton
2011-03-03 09:32:03 UTC
Permalink
I love the name fossil and the logo... please don't change it!
Post by Trou Macacq
My only problem with the name is that it's to common a word - searching
for info on fossil keeps turning up paleontological sites.
Try searching for "fossil scm".  It works for me.
I think our goal here is to make a ballyhoo around fossil (the same way
how git quickly became popular some time ago), so 'fossil' keyword will
not lead to the paleontological sites at the first place.
And important step on this is to make website more stylish. Compare all
* http://git-scm.com/
* http://mercurial.selenic.com/
* http://bazaar.canonical.com/
and please don't say that http://www.fossil-scm.org/ looks modern enough.
Design matters.
--
@macacq
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
Refactor
Engage. Succeed. Repeat.
PO Box 802, Labrador, Q 4215, Australia
tel: +61 (0)7 5668 3424 web: refactor.com.au
Richard Hipp
2011-03-03 11:41:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
--
D. Richard Hipp
***@sqlite.org
Kristoffer Lawson
2011-03-03 12:25:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)

When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be easier (not to mention more tempting, which should be obvious). The exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks good, is rated as being easier.

I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do with a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly justify spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it stands I wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to play around with it.

For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd be looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
Richard Hipp
2011-03-03 14:26:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)
When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be
easier. The exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it
looks good, is rated as being easier.
Fair enough. So I spruced up the website with some CSS. What else do you
recommend.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do with a
bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly justify spending
a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it stands I wouldn't want
to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to play around with it.
For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax monster,
with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to load. The
Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd be looking
more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
***@sqlite.org
Kristoffer Lawson
2011-03-03 14:55:32 UTC
Permalink
Fair enough. So I spruced up the website with some CSS. What else do you recommend.
Ah, similar type of bar as on the Tcl website. Definitely an improvement. This is exactly the kind of thing that helps, with relatively small effort.

I would probably consider a different colour for the Fossil logo (but leave the form as it is). Very difficult to say what colour would work without playing around. Maybe #597d41? Just something to make the page feel a bit more alive.

Some gfx guy could even do a bit with the larger logo.. add a bit of border, delicate shading. Some details.

The top line could be normal sans serif font, without the italics, and without "Fossil: " (since it's mentioned at the top anyway). Smaller font to get it all on one line.

It would also be worth looking at the numbered list of features and to do something different with that. Maybe just each point with a title and paragraph of text:

Title with bolded and slightly larger font

Main text with normal font. Possibly a bit of an extra padding after the paragraph to visually separate it from the following title.

The background of the big Fossil logo box could have a very delicate shade or some colour detailing (again, hard to know without just playing around). Possibly remove the text wrapping from around it, and have effectively two columns: main text and then navi box.

Anyway, those are the things I'd probably fiddle around with myself to see where I'd get. Little things make an incredible difference. The tweaks you already did greatly improve it already. So good work on that.
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
Richard Hipp
2011-03-03 15:04:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Some gfx guy could even do a bit with the larger logo.. add a bit of
border, delicate shading. Some details.
Volunteers?

Current image sources can be found here:

http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact?name=672ae6297081bd6a1
http://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/artifact?name=590c4da59ebd76b
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
***@sqlite.org
Douglas Fitzmaurice
2011-03-03 18:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Looks great!

I've made a couple of prototype logo changes:
Loading Image...
<http://helixtech.org.uk/fossil/fossil-logo-1s.png>
Loading Image...

<http://helixtech.org.uk/fossil/fossil-logo-2s.png>They obviously need some
work, hopefully from someone with more design skill than me! (i.e. anyone).
Post by Richard Hipp
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)
When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be
easier. The exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it
looks good, is rated as being easier.
Fair enough. So I spruced up the website with some CSS. What else do you
recommend.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do with a
bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly justify spending
a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it stands I wouldn't want
to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to play around with it.
For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax monster,
with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to load. The
Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd be looking
more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Stephen De Gabrielle
2011-03-04 12:59:12 UTC
Permalink
Some logo ideas:

t-rex 'Exciting!'
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeEF1HR0h6BpVnOpRq3wMhFl9DOkh2j7nA7VzALlWdDqstpI68EA

Ammonite pyritized - the repository (and ammonite) are stone, but grow
over time. (though the ammonite is much more beautiful)
Loading Image...

I think I'll make a theme to go with this one.

S.
Post by Douglas Fitzmaurice
Looks great!
http://helixtech.org.uk/fossil/fossil-logo-1s.png
http://helixtech.org.uk/fossil/fossil-logo-2s.png
They obviously need some work, hopefully from someone with more design skill than me! (i.e. anyone).
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)
When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be easier. The exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks good, is rated as being easier.
Fair enough.  So I spruced up the website with some CSS.  What else do you recommend.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do with a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly justify spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it stands I wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to play around with it.
For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd be looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--

--
Stephen De Gabrielle
***@acm.org
Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911
Mobile        +44 (0)79 85189045
http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen
Mike Meyer
2011-03-04 17:17:04 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Mar 2011 12:59:12 +0000
Post by Stephen De Gabrielle
t-rex 'Exciting!'
http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQeEF1HR0h6BpVnOpRq3wMhFl9DOkh2j7nA7VzALlWdDqstpI68EA
Um, no. "Exciting" is the *last* thing I want from a VCS!

In looking at the other DVCS sites (and other OSS software) and
comparing them to fossil, three things stick out:

1) Most of them have very visible download buttons/sections. Most also
have a short "quick start" section on the home page.

2) Colors. The two sections often have different background colors or
bright borders to make them stand out.

3) Bullet lists. For some reason, people like using graphic bullets
for lists, with different bullets for each item. At least for major
lists. They also keep the lists short - normally no longer than
seven items, and then only if they are single-line items.

With those three things in mind, I'd suggest reorganizing the home
page along these lines:

The main content - the long numbered list - gets shortened. Either
drop three or four items, or drop the explanations and make them link
to a page that provides the detailed explanation. Switch from a
numbered list to custom graphics bullets.

Replace the box on the right with a download section: A big colorful
download link to the downloads page, followed direct text links for
Mac, Windows and whichever is most popular of the two Linux
links. Below that is a short "quick start" box, showing a cut form a
terminal window of doing doing clone, open, edit, & commit. The first
four lines (or maybe 8 to show a branch) of the screen capture near
the top of
http://blog.mired.org/2011/02/adding-vcs-to-zshs-vcsinfo.html is about
right. Except leave out the RPROMPT.


The bottom half of the page gets split into four parts. The right most
part gets the contents of the box that was in the upper left plus the
"free hosting" link. Oh, and add a "Quick Links" header.

The second column gets a "User Docs" header, and then the links for
Concepts, Building And Installing, Embedded Documentation, Branching,
Built-in Wiki, Event, Content Deletion, Password Management, Command
Line Reference, TH1 Script Language, Server Setup, Ticket System
Customization, and Import and Export.

Yes, this is about twice as long as I'd like, but fixing it requires
reorganizing the user docs. A quick stab at that: Create an "advanced
topics" page, put Content Deletion, Command Line Reference (since it's
unfinished), TH1 Script Language, Ticket System Customization,
Embedded Documentation, and Server Setup there, and just have the
"Advanced Topics" link in "User Docs".

The third column gets an "Advocacy" header, and links for
Testimonials, Quotes, Questions & Criticisms, & fossil-vs git, and
Performance stats.

The last column is "Developer Docs", and is the links for fossil
developers.

Ok, I know I'm not very good at the UI/graphics design game, so I'm
not going to try. But after looking at the other sites suggested,
those changes sort of popped into my head. Since no one else mentioned
anything along those lines, I figured I would.

<mike
--
Mike Meyer <***@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/consulting.html
Independent Software developer/SCM consultant, email for more information.

O< ascii ribbon campaign - stop html mail - www.asciiribbon.org
Stephen De Gabrielle
2011-03-03 15:12:21 UTC
Permalink
As, I hope, all list subscribers know, fossil is easily reskinnable.
Being self-hosting, the fossil site is too.

Can I suggest a competition with a few simple criteria & small reward
- site should continue to be accessible for the sight impaired
- CSS & HTML only. (extensive js can require more long term
maintenance than is desirable)
- should be accessable on a wide variety of devices (android/iPhone
type smartphone browsers, tablets & netbooks 7?-10 inch both
orientations, right up to my nice 24 inch screen)
- should cope with users changing the browser font size, and setting
low screen resolutions on small desktops/laptops
- the logo should still be a fossil of some sort. Petrified wood and
microscopic fossils allowed
- changing the name is not an option.

Winner gets the respect and admiration of their peers, runners up get
included as selectable skins.

What do you think?

Stephen
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)
When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be easier (not to mention more tempting, which should be obvious). The exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks good, is rated as being easier.
I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do with a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly justify spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it stands I wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to play around with it.
For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd be looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
--
Stephen De Gabrielle
***@acm.org
Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911
Mobile +44 (0)79 85189045
http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen
Williams, Brian
2011-03-03 15:25:24 UTC
Permalink
Stephen, you hit on the point that was a revelation to me (back in the
day).
The Fossil web site isn't a web site; it's the WIKI.

The discussions of page design aside, perhaps that fact should be
mentioned in the first bullet.

-----Original Message-----
From: fossil-users-***@lists.fossil-scm.org
[mailto:fossil-users-***@lists.fossil-scm.org] On Behalf Of Stephen
De Gabrielle
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:12 AM
To: fossil-***@lists.fossil-scm.org
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming...

As, I hope, all list subscribers know, fossil is easily reskinnable.
Being self-hosting, the fossil site is too.

Can I suggest a competition with a few simple criteria & small reward
- site should continue to be accessible for the sight impaired
- CSS & HTML only. (extensive js can require more long term
maintenance than is desirable)
- should be accessable on a wide variety of devices (android/iPhone
type smartphone browsers, tablets & netbooks 7?-10 inch both
orientations, right up to my nice 24 inch screen)
- should cope with users changing the browser font size, and setting
low screen resolutions on small desktops/laptops
- the logo should still be a fossil of some sort. Petrified wood and
microscopic fossils allowed
- changing the name is not an option.

Winner gets the respect and admiration of their peers, runners up get
included as selectable skins.

What do you think?

Stephen
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)
When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be
easier (not to mention more tempting, which should be obvious). The
exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks
good, is rated as being easier.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do
with a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly
justify spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it
stands I wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to
play around with it.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax
monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to
load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd
be looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic startups
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
--
Stephen De Gabrielle
***@acm.org
Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911
Mobile +44 (0)79 85189045
http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen
s***@gmail.com
2011-03-03 16:23:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
New user thoughts...
I think the Fossil website as a Wiki existence should be more clearly explained.
I too was "fooled" by this.
An inherent feature, is portrayed initially as a bare bones, minimalist website.
1st impressions != lasting impression ;)
The name is fine. If this was called bagofpooh I'd still use it!
Some of my code belongs there instead anway.

-Steve

On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:25 AM, Williams, Brian
Post by Williams, Brian
Stephen, you hit on the point that was a revelation to me (back in the
day).
The Fossil web site isn't a web site; it's the WIKI.
The discussions of page design aside, perhaps that fact should be
mentioned in the first bullet.
-----Original Message-----
De Gabrielle
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2011 9:12 AM
Subject: Re: [fossil-users] IMHO Fossil needs renaming...
As, I hope, all list subscribers know, fossil is easily reskinnable.
Being self-hosting, the fossil site is too.
Can I suggest a competition with a few simple criteria & small reward
- site should continue to be accessible for the sight impaired
- CSS & HTML only. (extensive js can require more long term
maintenance than is desirable)
- should be accessable on a wide variety of devices (android/iPhone
type smartphone browsers, tablets & netbooks 7?-10 inch both
orientations, right up to my nice 24 inch screen)
- should cope with users changing the browser font size, and setting
low screen resolutions on small desktops/laptops
- the logo should still be a fossil of some sort. Petrified wood and
microscopic fossils allowed
- changing the name is not an option.
Winner gets the respect and admiration of their peers, runners up get
included as selectable skins.
What do you think?
Stephen
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)
When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be
easier (not to mention more tempting, which should be obvious). The
exact same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks
good, is rated as being easier.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do
with a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly
justify spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it
stands I wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to
play around with it.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax
monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to
load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd
be looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic
startups
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
--
Stephen De Gabrielle
Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911
Mobile        +44 (0)79 85189045
http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
Richard Hipp
2011-03-03 15:54:50 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Mar 3, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Stephen De Gabrielle <
Post by Stephen De Gabrielle
As, I hope, all list subscribers know, fossil is easily reskinnable.
Being self-hosting, the fossil site is too.
Can I suggest a competition with a few simple criteria & small reward
- site should continue to be accessible for the sight impaired
- CSS & HTML only. (extensive js can require more long term
maintenance than is desirable)
- should be accessable on a wide variety of devices (android/iPhone
type smartphone browsers, tablets & netbooks 7?-10 inch both
orientations, right up to my nice 24 inch screen)
- should cope with users changing the browser font size, and setting
low screen resolutions on small desktops/laptops
- the logo should still be a fossil of some sort. Petrified wood and
microscopic fossils allowed
- changing the name is not an option.
Winner gets the respect and admiration of their peers, runners up get
included as selectable skins.
What do you think?
Let it be so, as Stephen as suggested. Go forth and prototype.
Post by Stephen De Gabrielle
Stephen
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
Post by Trou Macacq
Design matters.
Design != eye-candy
Actually there is research to the opposite :-)
When tested people quite literally find better looking services to be
easier (not to mention more tempting, which should be obvious). The exact
same functionality, or even worse functionality, when it looks good, is
rated as being easier.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
I agree with the posters here that the main Fossil website could do with
a bit of a touch up. If we were using Fossil I could possibly justify
spending a few hours doing a bit of design on it myself. As it stands I
wouldn't want to promise anything, although I'd be tempted to play around
with it.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
For the record I don't think we need some full-blown Web 2.0 Ajax
monster, with half of the functionality not working or taking forever to
load. The Fossil website is simple, and is great for that reason. So I'd be
looking more at a tummy tuck than anything too extensive.
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
--
Kristoffer Lawson, Co-Founder, Scred // http://www.scred.com/
http://travellingsalesman.mobi - 10000km & The world's most arctic
startups
Post by Kristoffer Lawson
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
--
Stephen De Gabrielle
Telephone +44 (0)20 85670911
Mobile +44 (0)79 85189045
http://www.degabrielle.name/stephen
_______________________________________________
fossil-users mailing list
http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
--
D. Richard Hipp
***@sqlite.org
Loading...