jzencovich | # 21 | 2008-09-18, 14:22 | Report

No I haven't, and I agree with you. For now.


JS is slow. For now.

Google is changing that. Chrome has a finetuned js parser/engine that allows websites to draw way faster than otherwise (opera/FF/IE ...). Google pushed the innovation. Now Mozilla just released an equivalent engine (still in alpha i believe) on Firefox 3.1 (dev branch?) that beats the socks off of chrome.....

Before long, js will execute as fast as a plain html site does on lynx.

Now, add the fact that tablets are getting a hefty processor upgrade.... I'm pretty confident that heavy js sites loading fast on the tablet will become the norm soon.


My point is: Why design for the past, when the future is so close?

(ok, that sounded cheasy, I admit )

GeneralAntilles | # 22 | 2008-09-18, 14:42 | Report

Because not everybody can afford to buy the latest and greatest (there are a lot of people still using the 770 as their primary machine).

The better question is: Why make things unnecessarily heavy for no benefit?

jzencovich | # 23 | 2008-09-18, 14:50 | Report

Absolutely right. I'm just saying that if we don't push ahead (by definition, leaving someone behind, like all those lynx users ), we're just slowing down the rate of technological "evolution".


But ok, let's talk about the 770. Even though the processor is very unlikely to ever get upgraded (fancy some soldering?), what about a solution in software? A new browser pushed to the 770 that is highly optimized for js parsing?

Hell, I think that would qualify as a major update for the 3 year old device...


I agree, unnecessarily heavy == no benefit. But I just don't see that in the mockup site Bundyo presented (maybe Digg, not maemo). Could be more simple, but I don't see it as "too much" yet.

GeneralAntilles | # 24 | 2008-09-18, 14:52 | Report

Yeah, well, feel free to work on that.

jzencovich | # 25 | 2008-09-18, 14:53 | Report

I'll let you know when I'm done then

fms | # 26 | 2008-09-18, 15:33 | Report

I have not been designing this layout for the NIT only. Rather, I have not been aware that Bundyo worked on the same task.

Our good General here asked for people to create a new light layout for maemo.org that would be easy to navigate and also easy on system resources. It is supposed to work equally well on both the desktop and NITs, so there is no need for two layouts. So I created exactly what I was asked to: a JavaScript-free layout with the bare minimum of CSS that also scales well (try resizing your browser window) and gives direct access to all the essential stuff.

How well it came out? Well, check it out and judge for yourself.

Bundyo | # 27 | 2008-09-18, 20:03 | Report

Hello from Berlin first.

No one asked me to do anything. I'm doing it because i wanted to do it. I'm having some ideas and better to share them than to ignore them.

JS is not for the sake of using it. Every panel is an independent object and loads its own contents and calculates its own overlays. All this can be removed and calculated on the server, but it will lose part of its flexibility. Also only one overlay can be used for the panels, but that will slow down showing it, since it has to calculate where it is shown. Anyway, this is only for the first page, the internal one is almost only html and css and is much faster.

About the bright look - since the look is based mostly on css, almost nothing can stop me to make a dark skin that can be changeable from the options (only my free time ).

@Boke: That should wait for after IE6 support. I should say that even now it is quite readable without css.

andrewfblack | # 28 | 2008-09-18, 22:32 | Report

Thats cool I had no problem with it I just got confused and thought that one person was working on regular version and one on tablet. I talked to GA on IRC and he corrected me. Both layouts look real good.

Jaffa | # 29 | 2008-09-24, 12:26 | Report

The look seems less important than coming up with the right use cases (although dneary's probably got a fairly close set, IMHO). And, until the use cases & information architecture are decided on, designs are - at best - pretty screenshots of what might happen. A true design has to be based on the use cases & information layout, not the other way round.

TA-t3 | # 30 | 2008-09-24, 13:00 | Report

As a general rule I don't like pages with padding on the side (the part with only a green background), it only leads to a horizontal scroll bar when zoomed up enough so that the text (the content) fills the screen.