<div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 12:39 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz <<a href="mailto:bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu">bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 2a. The cardinal sin, in both sites, is to prize form over function. OLPC didn't mind this, since they were sure that everyone who needed to know about OLPC already knew about it. In fact, they were trying to cultivate a visionary image, so an unusably stylish website seemed perfect to convey the appropriate mysterious aura. Sugar Labs is the reverse. We are engineers and educators. We are here to get things done. We are truly an open organization, with no need to present a false front of trendy but uninformative buzzwords, or make understanding our project into a game of hide and seek. </blockquote><div> I think I understand what you are trying to say, but I actually find the site lacking visual form. You meant the organization of the information is idealistic and not functional, right? I associate the form of the website with the visual artifacts, not the text. I also don't see a negative correlation between a stylish website and the practical nature of Sugar Labs. When I see a stylish website for an open source project, it increases my perception of the organization. Most websites for open source projects are too spartan for me. I suppose it depends on the intended audience, but in our case the wiki is already available for the practical and spartan. Adding to the visual problems is that I don't have Helvetica installed on my machine. I think I'm getting the standard, ugly Arial that comes with Windows. Perhaps we can embed a Creative Commons licensed Helvetica clone in the site? </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> 3. It never says what Sugar is. "Sugar is a computer operating environment for students, designed to replace or complement existing desktop user interfaces." The website never states anything plainly, opting instead for this long list of dull incomplete aphorisms, which link to phrases that are _still_ not valid sentences. Even aggregating all the information in that list, I would not be able to tell you what Sugar is. </blockquote></div> I agree that there needs to be a promintently displayed page that attempts to describe Sugar in a few paragraphs. I find the current list of ...sentences... to be very intimidating for some reason. People aren't used to reading content organized like this. Finally, let me say thanks to the folks who have worked on the site. It may not be perfect but it's a great step in the right direction. Thanks, Nate