Version 19 (modified by philipp, 11 years ago) (diff)


Let's simplify BeWelcome'''

See also

Maybe start with a few drafts:

Great, an attempt to reduce the "design overload". A design like this will allow a lot more freedom for the actual pages, because we don't have to build everything around the orange teaser any more. I hope we can fit in all the necessary navigation elements.

The change implies we have to modify our applications as well. Both the new Rox scheme and the older MyTB scheme assume a page with topmenu, teaser, submenu, and one or two sidebars, and the application pages are built on that assumption. So, it's some work to switch to a new layout, but it's doable. Eventually we could even have only some applications in the new design, and others in the old one.

A first step can be to add the new design in the extensions folder, as a conditional replacement of PageWithActiveSkin? (conditional = has to be activated in extensions manager application, via a session variable).

And, I like the photo with the car.

I'm curious about more drafts.

-- lemon-head

wow! that's so much better than the acutal skin, I can't wait to switch. (if it's possible - no high priority! - switching between styles in my profile settings would be nice -- midsch

wow wow wow - nice and clean! -- philipp

as I said, I love the picture with the car. We certainly needs such picture but we also need to be really connected to reality, so it will be 10X more efficient if such kind of pic could have an additional legend with "member XXX and member YYY pushing the car of their host member WWWW during the camp at AAAAA"

I hope we will have this photo team !

About the simplified signup, for me it only make sense if we have a way to manage members with a status "PreActive?" (where there can just receive newletters and contact people with public profile).

-- JeanYves?

I can only add another wow ;) I really like this layout, simply, clean and flexible. Micha, would you move the drafts into th BV Wiki, maybe with a higher resolution? I think the dev-wiki is probably not the best place for this, as everybody should be able to give feedback. btw: have you created more drafts? *curious* --matthias

ok, thinking more about it.. how do I navigate to "my messages" ? Put this in a sidebar? Or a css dropdown? (these can be tricky on IE6). Navigation bites :( Well, I still like the layout :)

-- lemon-head

(from a message on mailinglist)

The problem of squeezing in essential navigation without clutter is not a new one, not at all. Thus, it is a good idea to look at other websites, and how they do it.

What I propose: It won't help to have endless discussions about different theoretic layouts. Instead, we should make basic implementations or drafts for different of the below solutions and compare which is best for us.


Typical solutions found on other websites:

a) navigation sidebar (our sidebar does not count, because it appears as part of the content, and not as something outside meant for navigation).

Examples: gmail, studivz, a big number of major sites.


  • Consumes horizontal space: Sidebars reduce the page width we can use for

content. This is ok for pages with one column of text, because smaller columns are easier to read anyway. But any time we want to use more than one column for the content, or we want to show big things such as a map, we want all the horizontal space we get.

  • (+) has more space for text, links and even images, than a horizontal menu


  • (+) can be nicely separated into several sections (like the "widgets" in

wordpress sidebar)

b) tabs and horizontal menus (as we have it already).


  • Consume vertical space, so it easily happens that you have to scroll for

the desired content.

  • Space in one row of tabs is limited, and more than 2 levels of tabs will

usually look strange.

  • (+) The strict tree hierarchy implied by a tab-based navigation is great for

memorizing the navigation structure, even when it does not always fit with the actual structure of our site (or does it?).

c) CSS / Javascript dropdown menus (a combination of css and js can make them more accessible for older browsers). Issues:

  • items in the dropdown are not visible in the first place
  • problems in IE6 with js switched off.
  • easily pops out unintended, then it hides other page elements. Special attention in the design!
  • Often a dropdown does not look like anything will pop up. Consider visual affordances in the design!
  • (+) efficient use of display space.

d) increase the number of navigation steps from A to B, making it possible to reduce the number of navigation links on each page. In an extreme form, we could require people to navigate through a central sitemap ("navigation hub"), when they want from page A to page B. (I am generally not in favour of this solution).


  • slower navigation.

e) have different navigation links on each page. For instance, we could have a big detailed nav menu for the start page, but more minimalistic nav menus for group or profile pages, with links to "navigation hubs", or with drop menus to save space.


  • Not consistent on different types of pages. We have to do the design

with care, so people still recognize a link as the same, if one time it is in a sidebar, and another time int a horizontal menu.

I hope I did not forget anything!

-- lemon-head

Big up! This is great news for people with slow machines and/or low bandwith. I thought that we could allow to toggle between a "Pretty version" and a "Simple version" ( has that), but it would probably be a nightmare for developers, wouldn't it? -- sitarane (Julien)

It should not be too difficult to handle a simple (both in terms of load and browser requirements) and pretty version in parallel. It is planed for a long time already, just missing the developer who feels like kicking it off. --- Philipp