Home Page Lo-Fi Wireframes: It's content time!

Eyal Rozenberg eyalroz at technion.ac.il
Sat Mar 16 16:25:31 UTC 2019

On 16/03/2019 2:41, alex wrote:
> It's outdated in terms of
> design choices like the grainy background and white drop shadows of the
> text. Those styles were the "new hot thing" around 2007 and it was
> actually Apple to launch that trend. Design style evolved drastically in
> recent years and having an interface that resembles something that was
> almost globally used by all the websites a decade ago, does communicate
> a sense of "old" and "outdated", which it's not what we want for a
> product like Thunderbird.

Ok, if you say so. You're the expert here. I hadn't noticed any of that
stuff until I zoomed in after you mentioned it.

> Also, from a user-flow prospective, it's a bit all over the place with
> wrong alignments, wrong kerning and leading, and a poor use of white
> space to give a good and readable pace.

I think I can see the last point at least, yeah.

>>> So, let's start this process!
>>> First and foremost, we need to properly define 3 things:
>> I would say the first thing to define is:
>> * Which kinds of visitors does the site cater too?
>> * What does the site aim to offer/provide visitors of each kind?
>> * Which kind of visitors are "prioritized" over others?
>> For example, right now it looks like the main kind of visitor the site
>> caters to is the newbie user who is not very knowledgeable, with a short
>> promotional pitch and a large download link. Everybody else is relegated
>> to searching through the non-prominent top menu. I'm not saying this is
>> necessarily a bad choice, but it is _a_ choice.
> What you're talking about is defining a Persona, which in my opinion,
> would be wrong to follow that approach.
> Thunderbird is an email client for many different users, they can be
> newbies, teachers, developers, my mom, etc. Defining a Persona for such
> broad user base wouldn't be advisable as we would end up having too many
> variables to cover, or risking to alienate a specific group of people.

I didn't say that we should target a single "persona". I was saying that
this is the case right now. I actually agree with you that we should not
do that as much.

> In case of these type of products, it's always advisable to approach the
> content creation from our own prospective, and trying to answer these
> questions: What do we want to showcase? Where do we want to direct the
> user? Which areas are important to us?

If it were up to me, I'd want to showcase what Thunderbird _isn't_,
what's broken and needs fixing, and what we need from people to help us
make it that way (e.g. volunteer developers, money etc.) - but that's
not what would be relevant to most people visiting the website.

> Based on many constructive feedback I got on the wireframes, I noticed
> that we're probably focused on these funnels:
>   * Easy download of the main product and the Beta version
>   * Prominent donation CTAs
>   * Easy access to support
>   * Easy access to collaboration
>   * Highlight important features
>   * Highlight the Calendar

By "collaboration" you mean making contributions to the project?

Also, are "important features" the ones important to end-users, or
developers? And - are bells-and-whistles more important, or less snazzy
power-user features? Also, are we to highlight features in extensions?

More information about the tb-planning mailing list