Because of standard issues with browsers (IE6 <= being the culprit) CSS was not a good solution for this purpose. I don't know how this is nowadays, maybe the situation is changed with IE7 replacing IE6.

Well put-together, yes. Most websites aren't. maemo.org can set the right example, it seems we agree on that.

Untrue; this was true when everyone still used static content, and even back then webmasters had scripts to update all their static versions. Nowadays we have all the data in databases like MySQL using PHP to grab the data dynamically. The data is the same for the user, with some minor changes here and there. The design isn't dynamic; the design doesn't need to be changed after its programmed. The design for both versions is static. Heck, even WAP websites have done this right from the beginning.

Ehm. Don't make me laugh... desktop quality? Using Opera on a 1680x1024 resolution on a Intel Core 2 Duo with DSL and MDI (or for Firefox, tabs) is definitely a different user experience than using MicroB on a NIT with OMAP2 processor on 800x480 over WiFi without MDI or tabs.

MicroB doesn't support many extensions Firefox has. MicroB doesn't have XUL. MicroB doesn't have the same kind of integration Firefox has, and MicroB isn't used for the same tasks as Firefox running on a normal desktop either! If one is using the NIT, one uses this device for different purposes than a desktop browser, and the experience is also different; which is fine, but a webmaster has to take this (preferred) different experience into account when designing a web page. You don't want 10 flash videos playing on your NIT when you visit maemo.org; and rightfully so. That is why there are different designs for different devices. Please, lets not be overconfident that the is or can be a replacement for a desktop (or MicroB for Firefox or Opera). They both have their place, their niche, and serve different purposes.

Some other examples besides 10 flash banners with some woman singing about her lover:

1) Pictures. You want to have your pictures slightly less quality than the real version so they are faster downloaded, and perhaps also smaller. Some proxies take care of this. If you look on websites for mobile browsers you'll notice a difference in advertising because these encumber the user experience in such way that users stay away from the website.
2) You want to use less text and more pictures. As the saying goes: a picture says a thousand words.
3) Java and other things which slow down the browser (JS) should not load by default; only by user request. Same for Flash. NoScript for MicroB would be ideal.
4) As less distraction as possible; a user on a mobile device has a specific goal to use his device because 1) less resources; the user experience is more limited 2) the user is probably outdoor with limited time 3) the user comes on the website for a pre-defined goal, a task to be done; not to just wander around; therefore the user doesn't need suggestions.
5) Pop-ups, open new window on click, using HTTPS where it isn't necessary. Don't...

As a community you can decide on a logo, but I have doubts if things like usability, graphic design and marketing can be done this way. It seems to me that OS projects that are succesful in those areas, like Firefox depend on paid user-interaction designers, graphic artists and writers. Shouldn't the focus be more on that?

Yes, that is why I proposed that, but I don't know if X-Fade is a graphics artist, nor if Nokia (or their open source / Linux dept.) wants this; its their project & money. One can argue that due to the open source nature, Nokia expects the community to stand up for a feature like this.

Some artists were hired by corporations like Novell to design artwork for SUSE. Ofcourse, some of the artwork made remains the property of the corporation who hired the artist (while some artwork is now included in e.g. KDE). Perhaps the author of the maemo logo is able to design more for the website using the style he/she used for the logo to design more artwork? He/she can do so on contract. I don't know the winner of the contest, BTW.

I have experience both on web development in volunteering/community and professional/corporate contexts. You can get really bad/boring results (or no results at all) in both contexts, with budgets ranging from zero to many zeros.

In this case it would be good to get wide community feedback on problems detected and ways to solve them and then sign a deal with a professional team to go through them. Working openly but having something like a single contact with a customer role to deal with when it comes to make decision and approve stuff. Who? To be defined but needs to be someone (singular or plural) knowing about web development.

I have just asked whether Glauber (designer of the winner maemo.org logo) and the team that was involved in the work at Open Bossa are available to work on this. Nokia has some budget available for this task.

I have added the core ideas discussed here at https://wiki.maemo.org/Talk:Task:Maemo.org_facelift - although I have linked here instead of trying to reflect the debate about optimization for Maemo compatible devices Y/N.

In the times of maemo.org under Nokia's responsibility the ida was precisely not to have an optimized version of the website. Was that right, was that wrong - I'm not sure. Still, I think that first of all we need a website that is great and efficient on the desktop, paying attention to those details that make the experience better in Maemo compatible devices e.g. bigger icon-links, larger default fonts, less vertical space taken by top static blocks in the home...

If some optimizations are needed, from a political point of view we probably prefer to approach W3C or similar recommendations on mobile devices, touchscreens, etc, instead of promoting an "Optimized for Maemo" kind of thing bringing to web developers and users reveries from the past and extra work to everybody optimizing your site for every vendor with a browser and some cool devices.

Are you talking about the new wiki or the one we already moved to an obscure place?

The website is also very text-based. (...) IMO it'd be great to extend this to maemo.org (maybe with 2 'versions' of the site but how to do this technically is an interesting obstacle).[/QUOTE]

Yes, yes and yes. I had commented this already at https://wiki.maemo.org/Talk:Task:Imp...nt_web_content . I think the solution is to have the first and second levels full of all kinds of dynamic and customizable content, graphical information, videos and interactive stuff, and leave the full text dense (but needed) pages on deeper levels where only those looking for them will land.

This idea is too good to be lost in a thread. Can you (or someone) convert it to a maemo.org development task? Just pasting this content in a wiki page could do as a starter.

Thanks for your time and feedback!

You need to have synergy and incentive between a team of web designers, the manager, and developers & end users (the latter two for feedback).

My account on maemo.org quit working whereas I signed up for it while on vacation so I forgot the password. I've managed to solve the problem. Also, I had not noticed the new wiki yet. Thanks.

I've made a stub about the usability experiences at https://wiki.maemo.org/Task:Usability_experiences it doesn't contain any proposed solution for the necessary framework required to include the usability experiences yet. Because of the importance of such framework instead of including my suggestions on this subject I rather see discussion about it first.

The www.openusability.org you mentioned looks interesting : Provide a way to for FOSS developers to get in touch with usability experts and graphic artists. Apparently they have done this for the Gimp and KDE. I was also thinking this maemo emulator could be used to let people test software without owning an Internet Tablet.

I certainly am not Better leave that to the professionals.

As to "desktop sized".. I think this means different things for Windows and non-Windows users, or at least it used to. My impression is that at least in the past everybody on Windows (or the designers) thought that all applications should be full-screen. But I'm not using my browser windows in 1920x1280 even though I have a monitor that wide, I always have lots of windows open and they're all in about 1100x1000 or 930x880 or thereabouts. Something looking approximately like an A4 page, anyway.