solidproject.org Design Review

[csarven]

@gisellewenban , I suppose that some of these decisions weren't entirely yours. So, I hope you'll only take away the design-bits for your consideration. Thanks for contributing and sharing.

---

In reference to: https://inrupt.invisionapp.com/console/share/FW5K83EZGRJ/987274878

Should the label beside the Solid logo be "Solid" or "Solid Project"? Should we differentiate that on the site?

Why is the "Newsletter" more significant with a background colour in the top navigation than the other items? Reconsider consistency.

"Solid: the vital third layer of the Web" -- is rather pretentious, marketing speak... There are a number of tech stacks / solutions that's equally (if not more) "vital", and Solid doesn't even scratch the surface (yet). I suggest revisiting this. Toned down.

In the lead container with "Read about Solid [..] Explore the community", the ratio of whitespace is too high for the amount of text and its size. Consider increasing text size and/or reducing whitespace.

The border around the newsletter form doesn't serve a purpose. Adds visual clutter since the container for the newsletter is already separated with white background from the rest of the containers. Consider using the same colour (purple) colour for the "Subscribe" button as with other "buttons". Alternatively, reconsider visual difference between the buttons and lead links. If the links in the lead container are just links as opposed to form buttons, display them differently than the newsletter's subscribe button (and other buttons). Colour alone usually will not suffice for accessibility reasons. Lastly, as mentioned elsewhere, since the newsletter hasn't been maintained for a long time and its process hasn't been defined, reconsider including this at all.

It is strange to see the homepage link out to third-party for-profit social media services, when the whole idea of Solid is what... to be "social" and "vital third layer of the Web" was it? Especially with X now being a p00ped service.

---

In reference to: https://inrupt.invisionapp.com/console/share/FW5K83EZGRJ/987274879

I don't think there should be a mention of "Web3.0". We don't need to play the buzzword game - because they have the shelf-life of a banana.

I'm sure you've tested this already but for minor consistency in layout (as in with the homepage's lead container's visuals), how do the illustrations look on the left side instead of the right?

I find again the whitespace too high for the text size. Definitely consider increasing the text size. The line-height should be increased as well.

---

In reference to: https://inrupt.invisionapp.com/console/share/FW5K83EZGRJ/987274880

Under "Hosted Pod Services", the containers are using the same 3d borders as with the newsletter. I think the design you are proposing is essentially flat - which is nice - and in that separation is made with high contrasting colours and lines. I suggest to stick to that more consistently. Here you could either revisit how the information in each group visually sticks together and/or consider using flat lines to separate them.

Not sure if the heading of these services should be about the domain or their names but perhaps a bit more consistency would be great. Also make sure to have https:// (don't drop it) in the visible URL for registering.

Reconsider placing the logo to the left of the service title, similar to the Solid logo and name.

I prefer "lorem ipsum" text instead of "words words wordz" ;)

---

In reference to: https://inrupt.invisionapp.com/console/share/FW5K83EZGRJ/987274881

Not sure what happened here with the container on "where to talk" and "Solid Community Group". Same as earlier. Drop it.

Consider (and this would be more for content editor/team) changing "Learn more about the Solid specification" to something along the lines of "Learn more about the Solid specifications and get involved" -- Something that encourages involvement/contributing, 'writing', and not just reading/observing.

:) Some of us are tired of commenting on Solid World stuff especially people supposedly "responsible" of it don't care to play by any sense of rules. So, I don't think the website should give any prominence to this until process is resolved. Whatever. Presumably this would even link out to Vimeo - which technically has zero social engagement. Remind me, how confident are we about our "vital" stack that we can't even host our own videos under our own control? In fact, the mere existence / reuse of Vimeo for Solid World undermines the whole project. And, here this is further showcasing that it is not ready.

Some of the text in the container is too small.

All dates should use yyyy-mm-dd (ISO) format to be universally most accessible to humans.

Under "More Solid Events"... text is waaaaaay too small and faint. All that available whitespace...

Reconsider separation of sub-containers instead of rounded borders.

Contact point for listing events is using info@solidproject.org (as with the current content/design on the website). This is under work/consideration. There is a whole simple process to PR the event, without having to go through that email address - which we can't seem to figure out who actually can read/write to it - very much rocket science... or is it? I know this is not strictly your call but there are other content additions/changes in these designs that I have to call it out. Either don't change the content and focus on the design, or indicate why some of the decisions were content decisions and how you've decided to make calls on open issues.

The newsletter again? I'm starting to feel that we're collecting email addresses :)

---

In reference to: https://inrupt.invisionapp.com/console/share/FW5K83EZGRJ/987274882

Here we have the info@ email again for "inclusion" (for the few private eyes).

Borders. Text size.

[TallTed]

These several comments seem to be less "in reply to" the content of the pages identified by the URLs, as "in reference to" the design of those pages....

[csarven]

@gisellewenban et al, noting here that there was a discussion at https://github.com/solid/team/blob/main/meetings/2023-12-13.md#website-redesign on how the proposed static view includes Information Architecture (IA) and User Experience (UX) considerations. It'd be great to include some documentation on the proposed IA and UX changes so that we can both understand and monitor what aspects of the website (structure, content, design, or other) are changing, and how they may or may not affect existing issues/PRs. Furthermore, it'd be great to have any user survey or testing to support the design when UX is mentioned.

Just to clarify, I'm only requesting this material because IA and UX was mentioned as integral to the design. Which is not disputed. Just asking for data. The proposed design is fine in and itself - with some considerations/changes based on feedback. For instance, if we're exploring the presentation of events/media holistically rather than introducing new structure/information/presentation focusing on a particular event series (which is already under re-evaluation with associated scopes/issues/PRs).

If the IA/UX changes are addressing or resolving something specific that we're already tracking, concise documentation on that would be useful. This would help towards materialising the proposed design, rather than solely relying on interpretations of static images (from InVision or elsewhere).

[michielbdejong]

@csarven can you find a way forward with this?