Comments

Comment by Gerard van Thienen. (Friday, September 12, 2008 7:01:27 PM CEST)
Welcome page no long text, ok.
paper and watermark databases(add wm!!).
Only Atlas image OK.
4 other ones not.
Catalog should get a watermark image.

Comment by Frieder Schmidt. (Friday, September 12, 2008 9:07:10 PM CEST)
proposal1 has evident tab functions, proposal2 wastes too much space for header image

Comment by Vlad Atanasiu. (Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:04:51 AM CEST)
> proposal2 has no superfluous pictures, reading of the catalog results is easy, quick and elegant - it provides a streamlined, essential and consistent web experience

> the pictures used should show bernstein's production, not be generic stock pictures

> imho the size of the image on top is just right as it couterbalance the empty space below

Comment by Emanuel Wenger. (Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:27:53 PM CEST)
Both proposals need a couple of improvements. Proposal 2 has better design, especially the result list and statistics look more appealing. Readability and structure of advanced search must be enhanced among others.

Comment by Vlad Atanasiu. (Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:57:06 PM CEST)
The first page of Proposal 2 could display the Catalog, Atlas etc. options on a single row, like Proposal 1 does, instead of a column on the right. This would provide an access to ressources as quick as in Proposal 1, together with the efficient design of Proposal 2.

Comment by Rob Sanderson. (Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:33:57 PM CEST)
proposal1: neat and tidy, obvious tabs, not too much space wasted with top banner image.

Agree with Vlad that images could be more closely related to the project rather than stock photography, but the design is better.
Secondly the images in proposal2 aren't that much better -- fuzzy pictures of manuscript pages? At least the images are related to the tabs in proposal1.

Comment by Rob Sanderson. (Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:38:00 PM CEST)
Proposal2 is far too long. I have to scroll 2 extra pages to get to kit, it's unclear that you should do this or that the images are even links. Also slightly too wide -- I have to scroll right to get to the drop down control for language (1024x768 laptop display)

The EU flag in Proposal2 looks out of place, but needs to be present in proposal1.

Search page in 2 is very dull, proposal1 is nicer (though colour could be better chosen)
Stats in 1 are too far right, but in 2 is too plain

Comment by Vlad Atanasiu. (Saturday, September 13, 2008 10:51:02 PM CEST)
Compare the Catalog > Advanced Search pages in Proposal 1 & 2, the page that will probably be most used.

Proposal 2 is much easier to understand because the graphical elements are consistent. In Proposal 1 instead you have:

Compare the Catalog > Advanced Search pages in Proposal 1 & 2, the page that will probably be most used:

Proposal 2 is much easier to understand because the graphical elements are consistent. In Proposal 1 instead you have:
- elements cramped together (the small top left corner has around 8 semantically different elements: logo, picture, about, language choice, tabs menu, sub-tabs menu, databases list, search results)
- chaotic alignment of elements (see databases, right end of tabs or bottom of results)
- input boxes, drop down menus, check and radio buttons of too many sizes, colors and border types
- too many colors
- color choices that don't harmonize
- too many font sizes
- badly aliased logo
- icons are superfluous, better left away or replaced by text (the magnifier is even doubled by an 'A-Z', but both are cryptic, not immediatly understandable as meaning 'index')
- the html code itself is not of the best quality (no html version, no Unicode, abusive use of div instead of paragraph marks for taging text portions, 9 (!) different style sheet files, unclean alignments (makes a hell out of debuging), etc.
- the designer of Proposal 1 has in conclusion not worked as careful as the one of Proposal 2

Rob: The images in proposal2 aren't that much better.

Vlad: Yes, images both in Proposal 1 & 2 have to come from Bernstein.

Rob: Proposal2 is far too long.

Vlad: Correct. The intro page of P1 shows you quicker what's in the project - it could be taken over by P2 and adapted to its own design.

Rob: Also slightly too wide.

Vlad: Yes. They should do it narrower. Itold them but the designer felt sick before he could change anything.

Rob: Stats in 1 are too far right, but in 2 is too plain.

Vlad: Plain but not ugly. In 1 it is messy. Look at that table for example: gratings all over the place (and you don't need so many), but for on the left and down. As for the buttons they are positioned like drops of rain, no structure at all (alas not intentionally).

Comment by Frieder Schmidt. (Monday, September 15, 2008 3:21:54 AM CEST)
Proposal1 gives each feature of the bernstein workspace a fair chance to be perceived. Proposal2 privileges the first feature

Comment by Vlad Atanasiu. (Monday, September 15, 2008 3:25:06 AM CEST)
A Proposal 3 could combine the entry page of P1 where every section is visible at one once with the design of P2 which is more legible.

Comment by Paul Watry. (Monday, September 15, 2008 9:38:50 AM CEST)
The first proposal looks jazzy, but the second one is easier to use.

Comment by Anne and Claire. (Monday, September 15, 2008 11:26:10 AM CEST)
The proposal1 seems to be the most clear but we think that the picture in background of the proposal2 (the page of manuscript) could be more appropriate.

-- VladAtanasiu - 13 Sep 2008