I see your vision, but first of all I really think that this should be done in coorporation with the ruby-lang.org. Also, you need a designer; please don't take it personally, but the design looks like 30 min in Photoshop. Sorry for being harsh, but I love Ruby community and I would not stand a ugly site being the entry-point. The ruby-lang.org site is actually really beautiful, it's just the irrelevant information on it that is the problem.
Also, you need a designer; please don't take it personally, but the design looks like 30 min in Photoshop. Sorry for being harsh, but I love Ruby community and I would not stand a ugly site being the entry-point. The ruby-lang.org site is actually really beautiful, it's just the irrelevant information on it that is the problem.
Wow. There are so many wrong things about your comment I don't know where to start. You're borderline insulting with a criticism that has zero information apart from the fact that you hate it, and then you act like you had to do it to save the Ruby community. And then, icing on the cake, you announce that the official Ruby site is "is actually really beautiful" like an absolute truth.
Be constructive. If you can't, have some respect for other people's effort and keep your hate to yourself.
That was not hate, that was opinion. Maybe it depends on your own mental state (bad day) when you read that, read it again some other day. If you get the same feeling, then I would say we bring our opinions in different ways. Don't pain me as a wanna be saviour please, I've been doing Ruby since 2005 - I got right to tell what I believe in for Ruby community.
I laud his inititiative. If herding cats takes talent, herding documentation-averse cats must be even harder. Best to make an attempt, get buy in and feedback, and move forward. If the people at the top say "bugger off", oh well. If they say, "Thanks for starting this, let's see where we can go from here", then not only are they being decent people, but also constructive.
I think the site looks fine, as in neither bad nor awesome. Similar for the official site. Nothing special, just different.
Fine is usually more than enough since fine is usually better than 90% of what's out there. I've been reviewing design shops for a site redesign and most of them not only have less-than-fine* websites, but their clients' websites are equally less-than-fine.
* i.e. bland, uninteresting, a mess under the hood, mildly unusable, ...
Evolutionary - no fine is not enough. If you can choose between bad, fine, great - you pick great unless it's takes too much resources (time/currency/etc). In this case the constraint are "open source workload" which is quite massive nowadays - then consider a "fine" site hacked together in an hour a good solution on this problem is "not enough".
Now it seems the picked path for ruby-lang is open contribution, that is not just "fine" - it's great.
