
RubyGems.org Redesign - bradly
http://rubygems.org/?redesign
======
tomdale
Huge thanks to DockYard for working on the design on this; it looks amazing!

As an open source maintainer, one of the most valuable things people can
contribute is great design. Not a lot of designers think to spend their spare
time contributing to open source.

If you work at a company with great designers and you ever notice they have
some spare cycles, you can have a huge impact by helping them contribute to
your favorite open source project. Not only does the open source project get
desperately-needed design, your company gets the increased visibility that
goes with it. (How much is that DockYard logo on the front page worth in
advertising $$$?)

~~~
rohitarondekar
This looks good but two things:

1] The guides section is still on the older design which I'm guessing will be
updated later?

2] IMHO on the show gem page the authors/owners section should be moved below
licence + versions/runtime-deps sections. The later are more important for
first time scanning especially when looking for a new gem.

~~~
davidradcliffe
We just pushed out changes to the guides!

------
khangtoh
Am I the only one that feels the color was just too glaring for my eyes? My
eyes couldn't stand looking at the page for 5 secs.

~~~
rb2k_
Same here. Maybe "flux" adds to that?

~~~
berkes
I tried toggling redshift (An Open Source, Ubuntu-friendly alternative for
flux) and it does make a little difference, but hardly enough to warrant the
"glare".

Personally, I like it. Especially since the way I use rubygems makes me hardly
ever land on the frontpage; all other pages are much "whiter".

------
sciurus
On the page for a gem [0] there is a lot of padding. It makes the page feel
larger than it needs to be to present the little information it has.

[0] e.g. [https://rubygems.org/gems/aws-mfa](https://rubygems.org/gems/aws-
mfa)

------
clark-kent
I appreciate rubygems.org, I visit the site every other day. I think a simple
and functional design works better than this one. This looks over-designed and
gets in its own way. The colors don't go well together. The old design works
better for me, I find it more accessible and functional. Just giving feedback
as someone that cares a lot about rubygems.org.

------
hayksaakian
first impression:

i spent about 30 seconds scanning around the page looking for the search bar

~~~
thejosh
No offence but even with the extremely bright colour scheme it was quite
obvious.

~~~
leftnode
Not with a smaller monitor. 13" rMBP and it took me a while to see it - it's
obscured by the globe wireframe.

[https://picto.io/i/IatX8owh.png](https://picto.io/i/IatX8owh.png)

~~~
nilliams
Looks like you fall between a couple of sweet spots with the responsive
design. If you reduce your browser width a bit more I'm guessing you see the
brighter globe wireframe disappear and the search bar becomes more obvious?

They could probably fix this by throwing in some more media queries that do
the same thing (toggle the brighter globe) but based on `min-height` rather
than width-alone.

------
Raphael
Why is it orange? Ruby should be red.

The background is a gradient from orange to red, but the orange is on top, so
the header is orange.

[http://rubygems.org/red.jpg](http://rubygems.org/red.jpg)

------
zhougn
I really don't like the tiny 'copy' icon aside the gem install code:

[http://rubygems.org/gems/rails](http://rubygems.org/gems/rails)

And it shows as 'Missing...' on a browser without flash.

------
foz
Considering that searching for gems is the primary call to action, adding an
autocomplete drop-down would help users a lot.

------
tonyedgecombe
The font in the guides looks awful on my Windows machine, it became more
readable if I reduced the size.

------
zghst
Looks great! Was here earlier today

------
gankgu
the red color hurt my eyes. ORZ...

