Redesigned Python.org
python.org
python.org
My first impression was very favourable. The design is clean and well implemented for the most part.
The menu design is quite effective, except that most of the first panel, under About, seems like low priority background information that won't interest most visitors. I would have thought promoting the material on getting started, and on major areas like downloads and documentation, would be the highest priorities here.
I tend to think having basic code examples high up on a programming language's home page is a good thing, and I like the general idea here. However, if it were me I'd move away from the automatic switching to something with manual controls to cycle through the examples. As others have noted, the content below keeps moving, along with all the usual problems that make carousels a bad idea.
It's a shame they're still using the Flux font in places. I get that it's traditional, but it's simply not a very good font, and it brings an amateurish feel to an otherwise very professional-looking page.
>>> print 'Hello, I'm Python!'
File "<stdin>", line 1
print 'Hello, I'm Python!'
^
SyntaxError: invalid syntax
>>> print ("Hello, I'm Python!") # Input, assignment
>>> name = input('What is your name?\n')
>>> print 'Hi, %s.' % name
>>> from __future__ import division
Since much of the "slow" Python code out there is slow at least in part due to use of inappropriate data types, it might be best not to start beginners off by mixing these things up.
This is orthogonal to whether a container is a list or an array though.
Talk about premature optimization.
They've redesigned since that, reducing clutter, improving readability and visual hierarchy.
Note that you can instantly tell that Ruby is a programming language, and how red “Download” button sticks out on http://ruby-lang.org/.
If I were on the design team, I would spend some time researching how and why competitors (Ruby, Java, others) go about their homepages.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20100401000000/http://www.ruby-l... (I was never a Ruby programmer, but I remember being interested in the language back then, and its homepage sprung to mind after seeing Python.org redesign)
At least for me, the first screenfull of python.org is dominated by a picture of some code and the text 'Python is a programming language that lets you work quickly and integrate systems more effectively', very similar to Ruby.org.
From there, the python site is dominated by links to get a new Python programmer started, while the Ruby site is dominated by a blog feed that talks about recent events. So the Python front page serves a new programmer, while the Ruby frontpage is more about being the center of a comunity.
Given Python is often a first programming language, while Ruby has a very tight community, I think that difference is sort of natural.
Clear and concise summary “Python is a programming language…” is down below near the fold of my screen, and it uses subdued gray-colored text on blue background.
Meanwhile, much attention (via color contrast and positioning) is given to code samples. Code samples are aimed at those who don't yet speak Python, so they are poorly readable ‘by default’. I personally wouldn't throw them at user right away as they start skimming the page, placing short intro text higher in visual hierarchy. (I'd also try making samples more readable.)
Then there's search box. It is quite high in visual hierarchy, since it's the only plain white-colored object (and a sizable rectangle at that) among the shades of blue and occasional yellow above the fold. Meanwhile, it's not (I'm sure) going to be used by the majority of users.
I would say the visual hierarchy is not perfect and there's some visual clutter.
Also a problem are redundant links. How many are there that lead to documentation or, say, download page? You don't know it, but your brain (or at least brain of someone who's new to the site) evaluates all of them before choosing which one to click.
Of course, most of us are used to interacting with worse designs, and prior design of python.org had its own (maybe more significant) problems. Nevertheless, I think the landing page could be designed to cause less cognitive strain on the user.
Ah, but we weren't.
I'd like to apologize - I didn't mean that to sound sassy.
When I was viewing the site earlier, I was doing it on a high resolution widescreen monitor, rotated 90 degrees so that the page was very, very tall.
On the python page, I had pretty much the whole page visible, and it was all useful stuff. On the Ruby page, about 70% of my screen was dominated with the blog feed.
So, the way the pages looked to me was actually quite different, and about the only other people getting the experience I was are tablet users reading the site in portrait.
In the weird portrait view, the python site is better than the ruby site. The way normal people look at it, the ruby site is better.
One comment: As the main feature goes between code examples, the box grows. This makes the rest of the page jump around - which is frustrating if the viewer happens to be reading it or clicking links.
Great design, with only minor issues.
I guess that got ignored.
The bottom of the page is pretty wacky, in particular: http://i.imgur.com/jZ6bUZu.png
If I had any criticism it would be this - leading with the code is great, but there are too many menus and too many choices.
present http://web.archive.org/web/20140219035142/http://python.org/
past http://web.archive.org/web/20131130224018/http://python.org/
update : http://preview.python.org/ in case you see the old
update 2: Am I the only one to want a (js based client side) repl + tutorial and side docs as the basis of any language website ? the new layout is a bit lighter than the old, but it looks like they're selling cookies. Sorry to be ranty.
VPN and the like would be nice but not hardly required.
Also, does Ruby's official site run on rails?
Just look at the source of the landing page. A lot of JavaScript and the usual kinds of structure that modern pages have.
> Where's its source code(Is it open sourced)?
Just right-click the page in your browser and view source.
I love the new site.
It's good to see an exception of this rule. They probably needed to hire a professional designer to make this happen, but it was worth it.
Indeed.
You may not like what they've come up with, but this is not amateur work. That's not to say I love it or don't think it can be improved, but it bears all the hallmarks of a design which has gone through several designers along with a lot of stakeholders adding in what they see as essentials and perhaps making the design messier than it was originally. Getting agreement on these things is sometimes hard, and if lots of people are involved, it can lead to a slightly cluttered feel, esp. on a home page.
I do think it's refreshing that they lead with code samples, that's a really nice idea, and overall think it is looking pretty good (esp. compared to the previous site).
If anything they need to pare it back some more and let the essentials speak rather than cluttering it with too much information, but I don't think I'd describe it as amateur, and if you're going to do so, you should make a far more substantial critique to explain what you consider professional to be.
In the mother of all pedantic pull requests, I've created https://github.com/python/pythondotorg/pull/77
Colours and fonts are better, but there's too much detail on the homepage imho.
The fact that the whole site is on github is fantastic. Incredible resource for learning Django development.
According to the requirements.txt (https://github.com/python/pythondotorg/blob/master/requireme...)
Nice work and most definitely a refreshing change.
Also, the size of the console grows larger for demo 3, and shrinks back when I go for other demos. I may have a bigger font than usual, but can it be fixed?
One minus is that some of the color choices on the code blocks are not optimal. Dark grey on black is not exactly the most readable..
Moreover, the page is somewhat confusing, especially with non-obvious menus, and language that makes links seem redundant. Multiple navbars don't help, either. The page also lacks contrast, especially at the top.
I understand that javascript is generally a safe assumption, but the page should at least be readable and navigable without javascript (or webfonts). Also, it would be better if all the js were at python.org, instead of hotlinking to different domains. As it stands, the page is nowhere near as bad as some, but it's a nice touch.
What ?
Include what platform you are using, what version of what browser and which specific icons look like what.