Re: [Firebird-website] [Firebird-general] Re: Fb Website

[Giovanni P. <gpr...@so...>]

Pavel Cisar wrote:
> We heard countless *suggestions*, very few
> offers and saw almost zero real contributions (most of those were just
> images and other graphics). We've got no improved CSS, no content
> (except content created as part of our sub-projects), nothing, zero, nada.
>   
You really never *encouraged* them.
> ...especially how we should do it in this or that CMS. 
Because it's the easiest way to get started. Moving content around in a 
CMS is usually quite painless. Skinning most CMS is quite painless
> Give me appealing CSS that looks great in
> all browsers that we could use instead such advices, and we could
> implement it right away. Did we get any? Nope, just the same old "use
> this, use that technology" b****. I understand that it's mostly because
> we're all developers, so all help/advice is developer-related, but
> anyway, we're getting tired of this over all years it's thrown at us.
>   
You seem to believe that CSS are developed in a vacuum. They are not. 
Developing a reasonable CSS requires a reasonable content structure and 
clean markup. And  www.firebirdsql.org has neither.
> We know what we want, we're just not skilled enough in design neither we
> have enough time to learn it as we have other more important duties. If
> you want to help us, help us with THAT. 
No, you don't. You believe you do, and  seem fully committed in 
micromanaging the activity, but you obviously have no real idea of how a 
good design comes to life.

> If you put cart before the horse, then certainly. Ask what we want to
> achieve and then you can create and offer us a design that could be
> accepted. But don't throw at us any design you saw, liked and copied,
> and that may work for someone else but not for us.
>   
No, because "what we want to achieve"  means  " We rule  so you clean 
our toilets".  And nobody is willing to spend free time cleaning toilets.
If we start discussing what *should* be archieved in a constructive way, 
then you will probably see a lot more real interest and useful 
contributions.
>
>> DB driven sites make change to the structure of the site quite painless.
>> And 99% of the professional sites around the world are db driven. It 
>> can't be that bad.  BTW it's really not the message an open source DBMS 
>> should give, unless we want people to believe that MySQL is stabler than 
>> Firebird.
>>     
>
> Yes, no, maybe. But underlying technology doesn't make an appealing
> website, design does. So, could we let it go and concentrate on design?
> Let the *real* requirements to dictate the technology once we'll get
> there, please?
>   
No objection.

Giovanni


-- 
Giovanni Premuda