Codeberg pages appearance update suggestion
Hi, I really like your ideas and I have also a few suggestions:
Apply some shadow to the icons (as before) to clearly seperate them from the card description and title.
Don't split the main title ("Codeberg Pages.") into two sections and apply the same color as used in your logo. Here is a suggestion:
The shadows under the numbers are a good catch. It makes total sense to give them a shadow. I either forgot or was too lazy – thanks for pointing that out.
I guess you had something in mind like that:
I think I get you point about merging the "Pages" into the title, but I see a problem. It impacts ont the CI that takes size, position & kerning into account. Also the dot makes it part of a sentence – which isn't really a desired handling imho. For reference I quickly put the approaches side by side:
In that exaple you notice how the text gets much smaller in contrast to the figure.
Another issue is that we want to be clear about "Codeberg" not being "Codeberg Pages".
These are some reasons why we often find design manuals stressing that the word/figurative mark is supposed to stay "untouched".
I went ahead anyway and tried to do something that would still work (but I still lilke the "all-pages-stuff-is-dark approach" better)
I'm quickly reesponding to a post on https://codeberg.org/Codeberg/build-deploy-gitea/pulls/17#issuecomment-69011
In my opinion the arrangement is relatively heavy in comparison. The ease of use of this practical feature gets lost in the rather complex layout. It offers some more information at places, but nothing that the target audience of codeberg.org users would miss imho. Just for comparison I put the new layout sisde by side to my initial one:
It is an interesting approach to color coding, and also makes use of extra illustration – which I like. But the depiction of a website is a bit "cheesy" and I'd rather propose to establish a side-wide illustration style that would be used in more places (consistency). That would probably be after settling on a "Codeberg" palette.
Do we have a PR for this issue in the works?
Not from me. I only contributed mockups here so far.
@mray wrote: Another issue is that we want to be clear about “Codeberg” not being “Codeberg Pages”.
I am preparing a project for broader announcement, and its name is also two words, but should not be a sentence. I solved by putting a bullet char between the two words, and you might do that for Codeberg Pages too.
Codeberg • Pages
The advantage is that you might use it to denote a range of services that way, e.g.
Codeberg • Docs
Codeberg • FAQ
I am no UX designer, ha ha, but to me - with the bullet char being big enough - it communicates separation and it reads as
Codeberg [slash] Pages :)
I would say "pages", or it would be confusing (the codeberg page?). You deal out multiple pages to multiple projects. And it would align to how GH presents it.
(Alternatively if you want to distinguish from GH, you might look for a different word altogether, e.g. "Sites", "Websites", "Spaces", "Presentation", idk.)
Deleting a branch is permanent. It CANNOT be undone. Continue?