Your website update is looking great!

A couple of comments:

- If materials are presented that are not relatively recent, it may
indicate to potential users a lack of project vitality.

- Because so many people these days are enticed by videos, I wonder if
links to a few selected, engaging videos could be made prominent on the
home page. I know that creating such a list could be difficult, but
perhaps some consensus could be reached on a few outstanding selections.

-gyro



On 8/4/2020 12:27 AM, TEC wrote:
> 
> Good to hear from you!
> 
> Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes:
>> I do like the animated images in the features page!
> 
> Glad you like them! I recently converted the static images to SVGs with
> the help of someone using Emacs27 w/ Cairo, would be nice go do
> something like an animated SVG in the future, but that's for (much)
> later :P
> 
>> I do wonder about the order of the topics within that page, e.g.
>> working with source code, although powerful, is probably not the lead
>> item for new users.  However, that's a minor point at this stage. 
> 
> Thanks for this feedback. I prioritised the source code blocks because:
> a) my impression is that to Comp/Data Sci people, they are one of /the/
> most    compelling features of Org-mode b) they're similar to elements
> people are familiar with (Jupyter    notebooks, R markdown), so the
> Comp/Data Sci segment of our    audience is already roughy familiar with
> part of their    capabilities
> I shifted the agenda/capture/clocking/etc. features down because
> a) they semantically seem like they should go together b) having them
> near the top pushes down too many other features too much, IMO
> 
> Absolutely worth considering the order, please share any further
> thoughts you may have :)
> 
>> More generally, can the column width for the text be a function of the
>> window width and have images scaled so that they are not wider than
>> the text column?  It should be possible to have mobile friendly
>> without making the columns too narrow for full desktop use.  The fact
>> that the images are much wider than the text makes the page look ugly,
>> in my opinion. 
> 
> The column width already is. I just find long lines undesirable. 50-80
> characters is the standard in publishing for a reason.
> 
> To quote from /The Elements of Typographic Style/,
>> Anything from 45 to 75 characters is widely regarded as a satisfactory
>> line length of line for a single-column page set in a serifed text
>> face in a text size. The 66-character line (counting both letters and
>> spaces) is widely regarded as ideal. For multiple-column work, a
>> better average is 40 to 50 characters. If the type is well set and
>> printed, lines of 85 or 90 characters will pose no problem in
>> discontinuous texts, such as bibliographies, or, with generous
>> leading, in footnotes. But even with generous leading, a line that
>> averages more than 75 or So characters is likely to be too long for
>> continuous reading. 
> 
> There's more to be said about line spacing and the reasons for this - if
> I recall correctly /A practical guide to typography/ (available online)
> goes over this.
> 
> I look forward to hearing any further comments you may have!
> 
> Timothy.
> 
>