?

Log in

No account? Create an account
iTunes ratings analysis - what looks nicer? - Greg [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Greg

[ website | gregstoll.com ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Links
[Links:| * Homepage * Mobile apps (Windows Phone, Win8, Android, webOS) * Pictures * LJBackup * Same-sex marriage map * iTunesAnalysis * Where's lunch? ]

iTunes ratings analysis - what looks nicer? [Nov. 5th, 2007|10:37 am]
Greg
[Tags|, , , ]
[Current Mood |lovedloved]

quijax and Todd and djedi and I went to Enchanted Rock on Saturday - here are pictures. I am sore and out of shape, but it was a fun hike.

My next project will be smallish - sprucing up my iTunes ratings analysis and letting people do it on their iTunes libraries. I'm starting with the sprucing up part - here's version 1 and version 2 (for reference, here's version 3 which is the same as version 1 except with darker alternating background colors):
Poll #1083910 Pimp my iTunes Ratings Analysis!

Version 1 has alternating background colors on tables, while version 2 does not. Thoughts?

Version 1 (alternating colors) looks nicer
5(62.5%)
Version 2 (no background colors) looks nicer
0(0.0%)
I like the idea of alternating colors, but not those colors in particular (please explain!)
3(37.5%)

Version 1 has black table headers while version 2 has more grayish ones - opinions?

Version 1 (black headers) looks nicer
6(85.7%)
Version 2 (gray headers) looks nicer
1(14.3%)
They both suck (please explain!)
0(0.0%)

Will all the constitutional amendments pass today?

Yes
2(40.0%)
No
3(60.0%)
LinkReply

Comments:
[User Picture]From: onefishclappin
2007-11-06 04:17 pm (UTC)
I voted for alternating colors - gray and white are ok, but other muted colors would work too. The page definitely looks pretty austere.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: gregstoll
2007-11-06 04:19 pm (UTC)
Do you think the darker backgrounds in version 3 are too much? (I ask because I think you almost beat me to responding :-P )
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: onefishclappin
2007-11-06 04:28 pm (UTC)
Hmm... not too much. I can't decide if I like 1 or 3 better.
A line or text size or something to set apart the title/headings would be good.
And something to frame the explanations at the top
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wonderjess
2007-11-07 01:45 am (UTC)
I agree -- a nice grayish-blue or green would be nice. I am partial to pinks, but I understand that many people are not. :)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wildrice13
2007-11-07 05:07 pm (UTC)
Yes! Throwing a bit of color in is good--it doesn't have to be greyscale to look good/clean/professional/attractive, but it should be somewhat muted. A low saturation and relatively high luminance color--I often, when choosing colors, prefer to play with the Hue/Saturation/Luminance than the R/G/B. For color design, it gives you a better handle on what you're actually trying to accomplish.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cifarelli
2007-11-06 04:46 pm (UTC)
I like the darker alternating colors in version 3.

And I haven't seen any opposition to any of the amendments, so I'm guessing they'll all pass.
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: wildrice13
2007-11-07 05:05 pm (UTC)
I said alternating but not those colors. I was thinking maybe like version 3, except exchange the background colors of the table headers and the alternating grey.

My thinking here is, the darker grey should be at the top of the table to set it apart; it's a visual cue for where the tables start. The lighter grey should be used in alternation with white, because the purpose of alternation is not to say "whoa, there's color alternation!" but rather to be able to more easily follow a row across a table. Similarly, I don't think the colors in Version 1 are bad per se, but they're too obtrusive imo.
(Reply) (Thread)