jtr7 on 16/5/2007 at 03:51
I'm sorry I don't have much to add. I'll just try to relate what TTLG means to me.
When my friend bought his new computer in 2000, his soundcard came with Thief: The Metal Age. About two years previous to that, I'd been visiting antother friend out of town. He showed me a bit of Dark Project--the "Assassins" mission, I later found out. He said he loved it, and it looked interesting. So, again in 2000, when I began playing through TMA, I found myself wanting to know the first story from Dark Project. I was thrilled by what I'd seen so far.
An internet search for more Thief brought me here. I thought the place was cool, informative, and often intelligent. I still do, though it's obviously changed as people have left and new ones have come around, and new games have been made.
To this day, as I continue to work on Thief-related projects, whenever I, say, Google for specific information, TTLG or Thief-TheCircle is always listed on the first page. Visiting the The Vault still a rewarding experience with it's now-buried treasures. I'm often searching for information here to further my projects.
I go through the Hub everytime, just in case there's a new topic or news item posted, and out of respect for TTLG as a whole, but it doesn't serve a purpose for me when the information stays the same. After all these years, the Hub is a little like pulling into the driveway of my home. I wouldn't mind a change, however.
If LGS is to be remembered as more than a side-bar or footnote, then the changes should be made with that in mind. I know I'm not saying anything that hasn't been said already. If LGS is no longer the main reason for this site, then the changes should favor the forums themselves, with newsworthy headlines at the top, above the actual forums so one can glance at the headlines and decide to read it or not, while being able to see the threads.
If LGS is at the heart of TTLG, the main forums dedicated to the games of LGS should be displayed proudly and prominently--grouped together--while the others are given a respectful nod. Accessibility should be a priority. Scrolling down should be kept to a minimum on front pages.
On a side-note:
I wish I could come up with a way to get newbies to notice and take the time to go through the FAQ's.
I dunno if anything useful may be derived from this post, but there you go.
Ultraviolet on 16/5/2007 at 21:24
I don't remember how the hell I got here. Who are you freaks? OH SHIT WHERE AM I
It had something to do with SS2. Cheats, maybe? Might have been modding. TTLG was (probably still is) the only major Google hit if you're looking for general modding information on SS2.
BEAR on 16/5/2007 at 21:41
Might I just say that I think that this thread is having 2 or possibly 3 different discussions. The cross-forum alert says 'Help us make (
www.ttlg.com) into an awesome thing', and while the OP by GBM calls for changes to 'the main hub', that doesnt mean to me just index.htm/php/whatever.
Some people are just talking about homepage changes, adding some reviews etc, none of those things to me make (
www.ttlg.com) into an awesome thing really, so what exactly are we talking about?
My impression of what was meant was making ttlg something other than forums with a homepage, even forums with a good homepage.
Maybe I totally read it all wrong and was coming up with shit that had nothing to do with the discussion I don't know.
jtr7 on 17/5/2007 at 01:52
We start with the homepage, the place a newcomer might see when he/she types ttlg.com into the address bar, or clicks a link from another site. That's the first impression page. Then we take a related approach deeper into the site, and daughter sites. First things first. But it's all connected, in more ways than one.
BEAR on 17/5/2007 at 04:03
When thinking about enhancing and changing the goals of a large web community seems the last thing to start with is aesthetics, I dont even think thats the point at all anyways.
Im gonna shut up now.
Gingerbread Man on 17/5/2007 at 14:43
You're right, aesthetics is low on the list, but one of the things to always keep in mind (from my perspective, at any rate) is that design isn't about decoration or putting things together in a pretty way -- it's about function and affordance and basically making an efficient machine / process that also looks good. Sites like Slashdot and Google etc succeed despite shitty design, not because of it.
Wait, I'm suddenly not sure that's what you were talking about.
Anyway, I wanted to say that so far this is an illuminating discussion and hearing people's opinions and impressions is going a long way to helping me form a good picture in my mind. The bottom line is as it has always been, however -- constant, consistent quality is the only thing (other than a vast, informative, static archive of information) that will make a site like the main hub interesting.
The problem of writers is not really approachable until certain angles of the overarching design / concept are fleshed-out. While it'd be awesome to have at least one person willing and able to write a new piece every week, it'd be just as good to have a bunch of people willing and able to write less often, and we can rotate articles / reviews / etc... but that's getting way ahead of things, and I only brought it up to make the following point: Once we have a good handle on what people want to see as content on the site then we can start canvassing for submissions and writers. But when the purpose and niche of TTLG is still a tad vague we probably ought to spend some time focussing the beam so we go from a searchlight to a laser.
Or something.
I'd like to hear more things along the lines of jtr7's post above, myself. I find it easier to tease out design parameters from things like "This is what the site has always meant to me" rather than "It should have a review section" -- don't get me wrong, both types of input are very useful, but more nebulous and impressionist things seem to give me more ideas than concrete ones. We still need the concrete suggestions, though, so don't stop making those just because my fat head has muttered something about "lol be vague guys"
Moghedian on 17/5/2007 at 15:36
So... function will follow form, and a vague "this is what the site page meant to me " will help you guys out ? :confused:
I want to help out, but I don't want to come across as a grumpy complainer. So I will warn you ahead of time that the answer to that question isn't very complimentary.:o
I've generally avoided that page because it is a pain in the neck to navigate. And yes, I have had my reading glasses updated :p
The reason is all the small font print and the lack of contrast between the print color and the back of the page has made it difficult to read. The pale print on a white page just doesn't differentiate the shape of the letters, or the lines of the drawings very much. I actually can read it, but it takes a bit of work to do it. The result is a place that I visit once in a blue moon, and then generally by accident, or in an effort to find the forum.
Gingerbread Man on 17/5/2007 at 16:01
That's exactly what I think, too. No disrespect to Dan at all, but the main hub is now (in retrospect and by current standards of function as well as web aesthetics) a fairly useless nightmare design, low contrast, small type, wasted space, and balanced like a cross-eyed elephant on a three-wheeled skateboard. It was great at first, but times and tides have changed the requirements of a website, while technology and convention has improved a designer's ability to address these requirements.
Especially nowadays with pretty much everyone running at at least 1024x768 (more likely higher, I'll have to ask Dave for some stats), things like contrast and weight are massive concerns.
(edit)
And yeah, for me and the way this squishy brain of mine seems to like to process and filter information it tends to be a lot easier for me when I'm given perceptual feedback rather than sensory -- which isn't what I wanted to say, but it sounded better than faggy terms like "emotional" and "rational"... It's fairly easy to generate specifics from abstracts, but not as easy to generate abstracts from admittedly small samples of specifics, you know?
Matthew on 17/5/2007 at 16:28
The animated .gifs are so quaint nowadays.
Moghedian on 17/5/2007 at 16:42
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
...
And yeah, for
me and the way this squishy brain of mine seems to like to process and filter information it tends to be a lot easier for me when I'm given perceptual feedback rather than sensory -- which isn't what I wanted to say, but it sounded better than faggy terms like "emotional" and "rational"... It's fairly easy to generate specifics from abstracts, but not as easy to generate abstracts from admittedly small samples of specifics, you know?
Yep, I do know. You're trying to build it from a big overall what-do-we-want-and-need picture to the specific item, which is probably the best way to do it.
Regarding the perceptual vs. sensory feedback...My grandmother used to tell me that if everyone were the same the world would be a boring place. She was right :laff: The world isn't one static thing, and it takes the perceptions (concrete, abstract and occasionally surreal) to get the whole picture. It makes sense that a similar thing would apply to a webpage.
