, ‘designer’, labelled chainmail
you’re all odd…
(that’s three words) 
Impitoyable Mère de Lucifer!
Such … how you say? … youthful naïveté, tch! tch!
The word you seek, mon ami, is … weird 
Le D
Yeah I’m officially creeped out yo.
Don’t get the death imagery though. That better not be what you plan as being Scrivener’s next logo should they decide to revamp there website.
Mon brave! des images de mort?!! oh non-non-non!! That’s 
my piccy! c’est moi, Le D!
Bonne chance, mon frère 
Le D
This WriteRight is how not to do a writer’s app for iOS web site. It’s full of the banal sections and auto-change image galleries that are so clichéd in web design today and yet so current and loved by “designers”.
this website is interesting in that while it answers questions directly about the product (what’s the product about and how is it different from other apps, who have used it, an explanation on what the experience of using it is like, etc), I will have to agree with you in that it looks butt-ugly and seems cheap and certainly doesn’t want to make me buy the product.
i guess designing websites, good websites, is really complex psychologically speaking…
Hmmm… I guess our tastes differ. I found the animations distracting to the point of annoyance. The app itself is interesting, albeit not compelling – as a writer I’m more interested in the keyboard, and how easy it is to quickly open and save documents, than an in-built thesaurus. Most important of all is being able to access those documents in other apps. But that’s me.
Until now I’d been looking at the Scrivener page, rather than the L&L page, since you were talking about Scrivener. As was mentioned above, Literature and Latte make more than one App, so they can’t only promote one on their landing page. Having said that, I do agree that there could be more information on the main L&L page. Much more importantly, it seems that AmberV agrees with you too, so I guess we can expect some changes there in due course.
To (potentially) put some context around how big an issue this is, I suspect that most visitors to literatureandlatte.com arrive via links to the relevant software page. So, for example, if you were interested in Scrivener and clicked on a relevant link, you would arrive directly on the Scrivener page*. Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that I am correct: does Scrivener-specific page address your information questions?
[size=85]*Note that I am just another user and have no access to L&L website analytics, so this purely conjecture on my behalf. Hence the caveat at the start of the paragraph. [/size]
On that, we are in complete agreement (and psychology is something in which am qualified to give an opinion). 
From the OS X dictionary…
Even on a surface level something can be pretty without being beautiful (or vice-versa). A flower is typically pretty, but a Zen garden often is not. The former might be called a pretty,while the latter definitely has aesthetics. I can tell you which I find more aesthetically pleasing (hint: it’s not the pretty flower).
At the risk of really offending people, compare Pissarro to Matisse.
I’m now speaking way beyond my field of expertise… ask me about adolescent development or ADHD.
nom, I think that makes my point. But then I’m thinking again. And that hurts.
I actually didn’t know about double-edge sword the word ‘pretty’ is…how it doesn’t actually mean beautiful…interesting.
I think the lit & latte page should be focused on selling Scrivener as that’s really Keith’s claim to fame. Scapple should be just another link, another page even.
It does? 
The question is: Who?
Yes. The definitions are not only subjective but clearly linked. One is a subjective measure of beauty, the other method of defining or structuring thing based on “beauty”. To say that something is “pretty” one must have, at some level, an (internal) aesthetic to define beauty.
Apparently everyone…
yeah…I don’t get what this conversation is about anymore.
That’s the norm around here, especially after page 3 of a thread (earlier if the +3 get involved).
By the way, you did you see my question to you a couple of posts up?
The “state of the art” design of the moment are websites that are designed to look good on tablets.
They show a lot of cool, expensive photography, have large fonts – and tell as little as possible about what they’re about. Or the product. Most say “Hey, you’ve come to a cool place - register for free and see what we are offering” - and I loath that.
The literatureandlatte-Website, on the contrary, explains in wonderful detail what it’s about. Three clicks, and you know everything.
Honestly, I liked the web a lot more at the time when this was “state of the art”.
1 Like
We are still discussing your original post. Nam and I are in a bitter dispute about the results of headless people thinking. We are casually suggesting differing opinions about how pretty and aesthetic are related (or not, but that thinking is wrong).
Others are trying to ignore me. But I AM PERSISTENT. I WILL BE OBNOXIOUS. Just ask my wife.
I can’t believe people are still discussing this ‘little’ topic.
A website should not aim to be pretty, according to the Oxford English Dictionary. It should aim to be both beautiful and informative.
By beautiful I mean: of a very high standard (OED)
nom, I don’t believe the scrivener page as it is exists currently is beautiful. It’s an eyesore.
“Beauty, like supreme dominion
Is but supported by opinion”
Benjamin Franklin (1741)
I wasn’t asking about it’s aesthetics. You said earlier you wanted information (videos, etc) and I realised we had been discussing different pages. So, although it isn’t on the front page, does the information on the Scrivener page provide what you are looking for?