Re: [aerogear-dev] Website restructure

The advantage with the dark color design is that it will highlight UX colour code. With light grey color of actual site not sure bright color will fit.

But if we go that route, it would be nice to have a main page mockup. Note you also changed (slightly) footer design.

On the other hand if we stick with existing grey shades, which colour would you use?

++ Corinne On Nov 5, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Hylke Bons <hbons(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: > Hey Corinne, > > It's an example of how we can use colours. We can use the current site > styling as well, it depends on which one is liked most. The previous > redesign was pretty generic and was mainly to clean things up a bit. If > the team like the kind of darker styling we can do that as well. I was > just expermenting a bit. :) > > Hylke > > > > On 05/11/2013 08:11, Corinne Krych wrote: >> Hello Hylke >> >> I really like the idea of using colour to gather together features. >> Just a very general question before delving into detailled sections: is this new proposal supposed to integrate with actual site design? just redesigning the documentation section or is it a complete rewamp of the site? Because i'm not sure the colours match the existing ones on the site. >> >> More questions to come later :) >> >> ++ >> Corinne >> On Nov 4, 2013, at 4:24 PM, Hylke Bons <hbons(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote: >> >>> Hey everyone, >>> >>> So Jay asked me to look at how the website content is structured and how >>> to improve it. Since we have so much content, it gets confusing very >>> quickly. >>> >>> https://raw.github.com/hbons/aerogear-design/master/aerogear-project.png >>> >>> Here's a mockup of a possible solution. I'm better at explaining things >>> in pictures than in words, so please have a look. I'll explain things in >>> more detail below. >>> >>> I've tried to keep every subproject use case based, and explain the use >>> case before features. See this as a bigger picture, and don't focus on >>> the graphic design too much, it's there to help explain the structure of >>> the project, and is not necessarilly a final graphical design in any way >>> (though if you like it we can make it work!), but I wanted to show how >>> different colour palettes can help explain the project and give a better >>> sense of where you are on the website. >>> >>> I've done a lot of research on the project, but some things may be >>> wrong. So your feedback on that would be greatly appreciated. Even after >>> spending many months with the project, I still don't fully grasp >>> everything (which shows part of the problem). >>> >>> 1. Naming >>> I've split up the project into three main subprojects: "AeroGear Core", >>> "AeroGear Push", and "AeroGear Security". These three are the main focus >>> and use different icons and colour codings throughout the website to >>> guide people. Each subproject has "client" and "server" components. >>> Server pieces being appended by "Server Component" and may be standalone >>> or an addin to something. Client (API) pieces follow "Project.Namespace" >>> format. This way, there's never any confusion about what we're talking >>> about in the documentation and marketing materials. >>> >>> 2. Documentation >>> Splitting up documentation. "documentation" can be a broad term. I >>> suggest splitting it up in three parts to easily find what you're >>> looking for: "Setting up" (downloading and boatstrapping a dev >>> environment), "Examples" (how to use the API in your environment to get >>> started), "API Documentation" (speaks for itself), and "Tutorials" >>> (setting up more complex environments and API usage). This covers most >>> of the documentation that is currently on aerogear.org and will make it >>> a lot easier to browse. >>> >>> 3. Coding languages >>> Where the API is unified across all platforms (hopefully most of it), we >>> can generalise example docs, and show a switcher for code blocks that >>> shows how to do a certain thing in a particular language using the >>> AeroGear API. >>> >>> 4. 1:1 mappings >>> I'd like to see the iOS, Android and Javscript APIs be self-contained >>> things that you can just drop in and use, with 1:1 mappings (what you >>> get on Android for a (sub)project, is what you get on iOS). There could >>> be technical reasons why these things are split up the way they are now, >>> let me know if so. I could be totally wrong on this too. >>> >>> Missing pieces: >>> - Where do we fit in Cordova? >>> - AeroGear Auth, Controller? >>> >>> These are things I'm not sure yet how they would fit in the proposed scheme. >>> >>> I think this is a step in the right direction, and I really hope it is >>> helpful. Let's iterate on this. Let me know what you think and how we >>> can improve. Looking forward to hear your opinions on this. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Hylke >>> _______________________________________________ >>> aerogear-dev mailing list >>> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >>> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> aerogear-dev mailing list >> aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org >> https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev > _______________________________________________ > aerogear-dev mailing list > aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org > https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev _______________________________________________ aerogear-dev mailing list aerogear-dev(a)lists.jboss.org https://lists.jboss.org/mailman/listinfo/aerogear-dev