

Redesigning GitHub - maccman
http://www.raizlabs.com/blog/736/designing-navigation-github

======
jondot
To provide healthy criticism, I think the redesign suggested ignores one thing
- the social experience.

In the redesign, the significance of project is diminished and the page feels
more like a directory listing. This is IMHO what bitbucket and the rest are
doing wrong; and what Github does right.

I understand the need for simplification - that's great, just perhaps take
into account the fact that for people working on a repository - it is not just
a listing of files but an experience of working on a project. I feel that
Github takes care to blur the boundary between the two.

------
cbetta
I've been trying to explain to people lately how to use Github and every time
I tell them to go to "Commits" they get totally lost. Everything is the same
grey bland, there are a total of about 7 navigation bars, and a lot of
clutter. The fact that they get lost is a clear sign that something is very
wrong.

This design is obviously a recognition of the problems and a suggestion of
what could be. It's not 100% right but it illustrates the possibilities.

I'm very confident that the guys at GH know this though and I'm looking
forward to what they come up with.

------
bjtitus
Removing the repository URL is a terrible thing. That is a key piece of
information that anyone trying to get started with a project needs to know.
Maybe it could be hidden after you've pulled but it needs to be there in the
beginning, at least.

------
kaolinite
I'm unsure why Github needs to be simplified and I certainly don't want to see
it simplified at the expense of functionality, as is shown in this article. I
can't stand this constant drive to simplify everything, which is more and more
plaguing software.

~~~
kolektiv
Simple does not have to mean featureless. Essentially equating lack of ease
with a UI as stupidity is somewhat rude, but worse it's short sighted. Many
people have spoken recently about the Github UI - it's much better than what
came before in that world, but it can be better, as I'm sure they'd admit.

Your "constant drive to simplify" is better understood as a constant drive to
improve. Local maxima are dangerously beguiling, we should always question.

~~~
kaolinite
"Simple does not have to mean featureless"

Very, very true. Good design can be simple and powerful. However, sadly - it
often does mean featureless and this link is a perfect example.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Both my posts were just downvoted. If you don't
agree, fair enough - but please tell me why rather than just downvoting and
running.

~~~
kaolinite
@jkochris, Fair enough. My first post was quick to attack (and I have now
edited this to show my points in a calmer manner) however I'm unsure why my
second post was downvoted as it was - as far as I'm concerned - a perfectly
legitimate response.

As for not reading the article, I can assure you that I did. I am simply sick
of quality software being ruined. I think the perfect example of this is the
Gnome desktop, which is being trashed by designers who are removing key
features and functionality - all in the name of simplifying and making things
look "elegant" and "beautiful". There are many more cases of this, both
commercially (Windows 8 may be the latest example, soon enough) and in the
open-source world.

