xwattt

> contains all and only the information I want to see

http://noisydecentgraphics.typepad.com/design/images/2008/03...

> examples of better presentations

Here it is - http://github.com/

> Is that information not useful?

Sure, all information useful, but presentation and usability of fossil ui is near zero. It looks like a programmer without any aesthetic taste just throw all information in random places on screen just to fill it. While UX designers polishes every checkbox, padding and font size. For example - why unreadable commit ids occupy so much space on the screen? When I open timeline - I want to read commit descriptions first, and only after that I may be interested in some commit id. I'm opening github timeline and I'm focused on commit descriptions, but fossil timeline accents me on useless commit ids!

> I'm not trolling here

Me too. I bet 99% of Github success is a good UX - but it is very difficult for programmer to understand it.

> web UI is adequate

https://www.fossil-scm.org/index.html/timeline?y=ci Adequate for what? That is just a mess of unimportant info.

Please, never share this link again! My eyes...

> skin

The problem of fossil UI is not a skin. Why that annoying commit hashes are so big? Do you really read them first? Take a look at github UI: every button and label have meaningful place and polished. And that is the problem of most github clones - they forgot to hire a designer.