New Pandora Website!

[Tor]

Well, the pandora site definitely doesn't look good in Konqueror. I have not tried with any other browser. But in Konqueror the page doesn't reformat to the browser window size, it looks like a fixed-size frame inside a blue background. There is no background behind the Pandora picture. The specification list seems to be in some kind of frame, the browser pops up a vertical scroll bar because the full list is bigger than the frame. Annoying.

In short, to me www.openpandora.org went from looking professional to be like some cheap thrown-together fake site.

Harsh, I know, but that's how it looks to me.

 

[Yigguth]

I've never even heard of Konqueror before

 

[mvickers03]

I disagree completely and dont need to reason why.. It clearly is better than the old "All in one website" and has some nice videos of the pandora in action. and the status list is much more informative

 

[Tor]

I've never even heard of Konqueror before

So you haven't heard of KDE either?

 

[Tor]

I disagree completely and dont need to reason why.. It clearly is better than the old "All in one website" and has some nice videos of the pandora in action. and the status list is much more informative

You "don't need to reason why". Now that's a great attitude. I would have attached a picture and let you argue what's so good with it, but this site doesn't allow attachments as far a I can see. Unfortunately.

And of course the status list is much more informative, there wasn't one in the past so how could it avoid being better? The blog-style list doesn't count. In any case I'm talking about the www.pandora.org front page, not the rest of the site's content. The front page looks very unprofessional in my opinion. A page that doesn't reformat as you increase the browser window size? In 2009?

 

[trendy]

I disagree completely and dont need to reason why.. It clearly is better than the old "All in one website" and has some nice videos of the pandora in action. and the status list is much more informative

But it really looks like a scam site. I've seen a lot of scam sites that look better. At least "Coming soon..." was removed.
To have more info doesn't mean better. I'd say the new look is even bad from for a community standpoint.

I don't know if the old site was bad in the beginning. When I first found out about this project was a few days after closing preorders (before the bank).

It looks patched together, not crafted. I could argue so much I'd consider myself post whoring. If it won't get better I'll ask for permission to redesign it a little, if I'll have the time and mood.

I remember some time ago complaining about Lavry Engineering website looking bad. They changed the forum but the site have the exact same defects. There's no need to change it, except maybe add OpenPandora Ltd in the footer (why is it there if it's empty?) to not be considered yet another scam deja-vu.

It represent the mood around the forums.
1 Argue nonsense
2 Claim it's a scam
3 goto 1

It was build with strong emotions, but that doesn't mean it should be considered good design. It an example of do not design when you're tired and in need of sleep. I do not want to sound mean, but if this was the site last year, I wouldn't ever consider the community behind it as a feature. I wouldn't trust people. I'd read a book, then ask MWeston a few question and I'll judge then if I'll ever want it. I didn't need to ask him questions and I should be ashamed I didn't read a certain book.

The difference is huge. The first site was like "We don't have time to make a better website yet", this is like "We're a (closed) community, feel the spirit, want to buy X", not really a problem, but too much fancy nonsense. I wouldn't show this to a person interested in this project (that have a life), I'll show the old site cached in google or only the blog.

 

[mvickers03]

I disagree completely and dont need to reason why.. It clearly is better than the old "All in one website" and has some nice videos of the pandora in action. and the status list is much more informative

You "don't need to reason why". Now that's a great attitude. I would have attached a picture and let you argue what's so good with it, but this site doesn't allow attachments as far a I can see. Unfortunately.

And of course the status list is much more informative, there wasn't one in the past so how could it avoid being better? The blog-style list doesn't count. In any case I'm talking about the www.pandora.org front page, not the rest of the site's content. The front page looks very unprofessional in my opinion. A page that doesn't reformat as you increase the browser window size? In 2009?

Actually, mate. After you have finished being rude, there was status updates on the old site i was just saying i prefer the new one because its much more informative than the old one. valid point yes?? and i think i have a great attitude, otherwise i wouldnt have taken the time to reply to such a nasty post, its just my opinion dude.


I like it. maybe your right in terms of coding but the actual layout works for me

But it really looks like a scam site. I've seen a lot of scam sites that look better. At least "Coming soon..." was removed.
To have more info doesn't mean better. I'd say the new look is even bad from for a community standpoint.

I don't know if the old site was bad in the beginning. When I first found out about this project was a few days after closing preorders (before the bank).

It looks patched together, not crafted. I could argue so much I'd consider myself post whoring. If it won't get better I'll ask for permission to redesign it a little, if I'll have the time and mood.

I remember some time ago complaining about Lavry Engineering website looking bad. They changed the forum but the site have the exact same defects. There's no need to change it, except maybe add OpenPandora Ltd in the footer (why is it there if it's empty?) to not be considered yet another scam deja-vu.

It represent the mood around the forums.
1 Argue nonsense
2 Claim it's a scam
3 goto 1

It was build with strong emotions, but that doesn't mean it should be considered good design. It an example of do not design when you're tired and in need of sleep. I do not want to sound mean, but if this was the site last year, I wouldn't ever consider the community behind it as a feature. I wouldn't trust people. I'd read a book, then ask MWeston a few question and I'll judge then if I'll ever want it. I didn't need to ask him questions and I should be ashamed I didn't read a certain book.

The difference is huge. The first site was like "We don't have time to make a better website yet", this is like "We're a (closed) community, feel the spirit, want to buy X", not really a problem, but too much fancy nonsense. I wouldn't show this to a person interested in this project (that have a life), I'll show the old site cached in google or only the blog.

Yeah I see what your getting at with the old website not needing to be flash or clever... It was more underground. I really dont think it comes across as lookin like a scam website.. there are videos of real pandoras running real software so i just dont get that at all.

 

[EvilDragon]

Well, of course, everybody has a different liking when it comes to websites.
Except for some stuff that can be made better (like grammar, etc.), so far I got a LOT of positive reactions to the site and only one negative, so it sounds to me the new site is better.
ONE thing that is clearly better is, that it is multilingual and I can add new sections, content, etc. with ease.

 

[trendy]

They have an empty footer and the company name it's only on about us page. That is scam-like because they have too much information to be considered a minor flaw. We're talking about people that would not know about gp32x. If you check enough (and you have to check too much because of post whoring) there's no problem.
It's not really a big deal now when new customers aren't a priority. It's just something on a To do list.

Edit:
@ED It's not about liking or disliking. It's about consistent and easy too use for people that don't or can't spend too much time on checking for information. It doesn't have high credibility without digging. "If they can't make a consistent site, they can really make a gadget better than that not so good psp or alternative? It looks like they can, but..."

It's about making people (that don't have serious technical knowledge) insecure for no good reason. I complain all the time at good manufacturers because they drive customers away only with this.

 

[Pleng]

I think it looks OK.

Shame it won't look very nice when viewed on an actual Pandora (lots of scrolling will be needed!)

 

[EvilDragon]

@trendy: Well, if you have ANY idea how to tell a NEWCOMER on a SINGLE page what the Pandora is, how it came to be and for what customers it is intended to be used... I'm happy to change the site that way.

Comparing it to most major company sites, I think it is A LOT better and informative.
I remember just finding technical details about a product is horrible (sometimes impossible) on some major sites...

 

[WizardStan]

The front page looks very unprofessional in my opinion. A page that doesn't reformat as you increase the browser window size? In 2009?

You make one valid point. My laptop screen is 1280 pixels wide, and the front page still has a horizontal scroll bar. No well designed website should have a horizontal scroll bar unless it's really needed (because what it's displaying has very specific width requirements; an image for example)
The "looks like a fixed width page with a blue background blah blah blah" is a stylistic opinion, and I happen to like it. But the width thing will cause problems on smaller displays (ie, Pandora screen)

 

[EvilDragon]

The front page looks very unprofessional in my opinion. A page that doesn't reformat as you increase the browser window size? In 2009?

You make one valid point. My laptop screen is 1280 pixels wide, and the front page still has a horizontal scroll bar. No well designed website should have a horizontal scroll bar unless it's really needed (because what it's displaying has very specific width requirements; an image for example)
The "looks like a fixed width page with a blue background blah blah blah" is a stylistic opinion, and I happen to like it. But the width thing will cause problems on smaller displays (ie, Pandora screen)

Huh? I designed it partly on a 1024 wide Laptop - and that one works fine without scroll bar...?

 

[EvilDragon]

The front page looks very unprofessional in my opinion. A page that doesn't reformat as you increase the browser window size? In 2009?

Well, I did design 5 websites for clients during the last half a year.
I first designed them to reformat with increased browser size.

ALL of them wanted a static layout afterwards - because on small screens, everything is crowded whereas on big screens, the whole site looks so empty because the content only needs so little space compared to the rest.

After that, I did check various other, reformatting sites. And it's true: They all do look empty on my 1920x1200 screen.
Then I checked some major newssites in Germany (i.e. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/, http://www.welt.de/) and some normal company websites (http://www.sony.de/, http://www.acer.de/, http://www.samsung.de/), and NONE of them reformats. They all have a fixed size which stays that big regardless of what size your browser is.

A problem with dynamic sites is that to make them LOOK GOOD, the whole content has to be zoomed (pictures, text, etc.).
And with the current browser mess this is near impossible, as they would mess up the text size and picture size, etc.
(Unless you design different contents for each size, which is also a lot of work to do).

It would only work with flash - and I don't want to have any flash on the site.

Any suggestions?

 

[trendy]

I'll make something and send you. A pretty pdf would be a good thing. If I can't get all the info I'll make a file with recommendations. I need info for it to be considered official.

I'd like to make the technical manual also. It's annoying when I see bad manuals. I'll give you the sources so you can make changes.
I like openrb style, but it's a little too simple for this.

Lyx is ok?
#openpandora freenode for communication? We can start in 10min.

 

[Devin.tesla]

Well, I did design 5 websites for clients during the last half a year.
I first designed them to reformat with increased browser size.

ALL of them wanted a static layout afterwards - because on small screens, everything is crowded whereas on big screens, the whole site looks so empty because the content only needs so little space compared to the rest.

After that, I did check various other, reformatting sites. And it's true: They all do look empty on my 1920x1200 screen.
Then I checked some major newssites in Germany (i.e. http://www.sueddeutsche.de/, http://www.welt.de/) and some normal company websites (http://www.sony.de/, http://www.acer.de/, http://www.samsung.de/), and NONE of them reformats. They all have a fixed size which stays that big regardless of what size your browser is.

A problem with dynamic sites is that to make them LOOK GOOD, the whole content has to be zoomed (pictures, text, etc.).
And with the current browser mess this is near impossible, as they would mess up the text size and picture size, etc.
(Unless you design different contents for each size, which is also a lot of work to do).

It would only work with flash - and I don't want to have any flash on the site.

Any suggestions?

Have you ever used dynamic image resizing?
You tube demo
It might serve the purpose that and allowing the text to dynamically flow.
Never personally worked with this stuff.

Dev45

 

[monkeyo2]

How to tell a NEWCOMER on a SINGLE page what the Pandora is:

If you would like to know:

• How many FPS you will get out of Crysis
• How to install Vista
• How to suggest that there should be a tablet mode/x86 processor/extra shoulder buttons/cup holder
• The REAL meaning of painting the bike shed

Just ask these guys, they would all love to help you:

www.gp32x.de/board/index.php?/forum/68-general-talk-wiz/

Any suggestions?

I'd stick with static widths if I were you, with the amount of info on each page is going to be lost in a sea of emptiness on a 1920x1200 whatever you do. A large fancy background graphic fading into the background colour would fill the space much more nicely in my opinion.

The Maemo 5/N900 site has gone for a 1024 fixed width, but still looks nice on bigger screens: maemo.nokia.com

The Pandora page layout goes crazy in IE7 if you resize the window, but then those jerks deserve what they get. I would love to have been more helpful as looking at your site in far more interesting than designing the boring bullshit site I'm working on at the moment, but unfortunately clients have to come first!

 

[openthebox]

I have no problem with the site as-is, I think it looks fine and is much better than the old one.
It would be nice if there is scaling/zooming, but if it means we have to deal with flash, I rather it doesn't resize.

One suggestion that I do have is a lofi version of the website for people on the go, if it's not much extra work.

 

[WizardStan]

Huh? I designed it partly on a 1024 wide Laptop - and that one works fine without scroll bar...?

It's just the home page that's doing it. The others seem fine, other than they don't resize (ie, word wrap) when the window is reduced below about 1000 pixels wide. Don't know what's causing it.
I personally never specify widths in pixels, always percentages, but I'm not a web designer, and what few web pages I've made are total crap.
This looks good on the platform it's intended for: the PC. But viewing it on anything smaller will no doubt be a challenge.
So to reiterate: I like it!

 

[marshal]

For some reason I got thinking about the Pandora banner on the top of the website.

The logo itself is nice and all but I don't really really like the text "ultra portability without sacrificing capability"
I know it was already present on the old website. However, IMO the text is just a bit too long and doesn't add much.

I can understand if the Pandora Team choose this phrasing and want to continue using it.
Currently I believe the the placing is a bit awkward though.
Also there is already "The most powerful gaming handheld there is" written on the homepage page. It seems a bit redundant to me.

Did a really quick mock-up without the text:
http://yfrog.com/89screenshotvnp

Would like to know what other think about this...

BTW I also noticed the scrolling bar problem on the homepage... hope it can be taken take of.