Layout choices

Post by **Phineus** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 12:24 am

I'm re-writing the truck download page and wondered what yooz thought of a couple design options. There's two to choose from and both have strengths and weaknesses. The one with the alphabet links probably looks a bit nicer (if not repetitive), the one with the dropdowns is kinda bulky. The one with the alphabet isn't as flexible, the dropdowns offer a few extra choices. Please check 'em out and let me know what you think.

http://mtm2.com/~trucks/sample2.htm

http://mtm2.com/~trucks/sample3.htm

By the way, they are not functional. This is design talk only.

Also, related to this: does anybody actually use the color options on the existing page? I'm not going to work styles in if nobody uses them.

http://mtm2.com/~trucks/

Thanks.

SLO_Jumper · Post by **SLO_Jumper** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:04 am

I like sample 3 better. My vote is in

Also, related to this: does anybody actually use the color options on the existing page? I'm not going to work styles in if nobody uses them.

I use it. I like Pug because the collors are not to agressive.

Post by **Phineus** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:47 am

> I use it. I like Pug because the colors are not to agressive.

Thanks Jumper, that's good to know.

[yep]

Rep Fan · Post by **Rep Fan** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 6:16 am

I personally dig it the way you have it now [yep]

And I use the SmartDark scheme [<-]

Fila · Post by **Fila** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:01 am

I voted too.

I also use the styles... right now i think it's smartDark. There are two styles i really dig.

Post by **Phineus** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:28 pm

The download page, not the forum page.

<center>

</center>

And ninety percent of the changes are the code that drive it, but there are those couple things to get the sorts you want.

Rep Fan · Post by **Rep Fan** » Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:33 pm

In that case, the Pugs one then.

It is much better, I never noticed the menu down there, pretty slick Phin.

ch_2005 · Post by **ch_2005** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 11:27 am

dropdown fits in better i think

umm why bother with it tho? anyone looking for somthing probably will just search for it. If they want to just find any darn thing then they will want chronological order.

For sorting do it like windows: make it so when you click on a column heading it sorts that column ascending. then if someone clicks it again then do it descending. etc.
No need to pick it from a drop box.

Also if you use checks instead of radio buttons then if someone wants to do author and truck name they can just select both. instead of selecting Both. lol.

also the spacing between author, truck, both, file needs to be a bit more because it took mea bit of time to discern what they were saying and what buttons went withi which titles.

maybe use the word author instead of maker.

umm. i havent voted yet because nither is actually somthing i would want to be the final version.

Post by **Phineus** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 4:27 pm

> why bother with it tho?

Several reasons.

We're on the brink of a huge expansion and it needs to be done anyway.
What's there is very inefficient and a pain to maintain
I'd like to develop a template that can be used for tracks, maybe utilities
Flexibility and choice are usually a good thing
Searches don't turn up everything, and people don't always know what they're looking for. These choices should be a way to get blanket coverage.
It's a challenge.

> For sorting do it like windows

Hey buddy, when we see it in cpod...

Seriously, tho. It's on the list. It's hard to do because of the query strings but if I can find a way, I'll try to add that.

> checks instead of radio buttons

good idea

> spacing between author, truck, both, file

okay, I have it better

> neither is actually somthing i would want to be the final version.

The risk is getting too complex. I don't mind the complete alphabet on the page, but twice gives me problems. The drop downs work but the redundancies bother me. And, like, where do the team sorts go for the track page? I don't think anything is going to be perfect, but hopefully we can find the best compromises.

> maybe use the word author instead of maker.

Well, right now the abbreviatoin is T and M

Mat-Allum · Post by **Mat-Allum** » Sat Nov 01, 2003 8:45 pm

I thought of an idea. If you give an option at the bottom, you can have users switch from classic view to the two new ones, and you wouldn't have to worry about people complaining, they can just select the one they want and stay with it.

ch_2005 · Post by **ch_2005** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 7:39 am

i meant why bother with the alphabet thing.

pretty much everything i suggeted makes it simpler.

Mat-Allum · Post by **Mat-Allum** » Sun Nov 02, 2003 8:06 am

Kruzr · Post by **Kruzr** » Tue Nov 04, 2003 12:13 am

<font color="66cc99">
I voted for #3. The dropdown is more useful in larger database IMO.

As for the styles, dont use them..too lazy. Just keep the color scheme nice on the eyes. Check this out

http://www.visibone.com/colorlab

That may help ya to come up with some new styles.
</font>

Layout choices

Which do you like better

Layout choices