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.
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.