While geography teachers would wail and gnash their teeth to find the North America map incomplete, I think it looks fine. No, better than fine: The page looks great.
On Wed, 2010-07-21 at 16:02 -0400, Máirín Duffy wrote:
> Hi Felix!
> On Tue, 2010-07-20 at 07:33 +0200, Felix Kaechele wrote:
> > I have some questions about the way the regions are split up on the page.
> > Why not keep the groups of countries (continents) in the structure that
> > we regularily use when talking about Ambassador regions? That being
> > APAC, EMEA, LATAM, NA.
> > For example in your mockup Europe and Africa & Middle East are seperate.
> > The americas comprise of NA and LATAM.
> > I do understand that splitting them up by continent makes sense too, but
> > it would be more coherent with our existing structures IMO.
> That's a really great idea. I did the continent split bceause I thought
> it might be the least-controversial way to do it, but I think splitting
> out by ambassador region makes more sense. Although it means the NA
> section is going to be *very* sparse, hehe. Splitting by continents,
> each section is individually a bit beefier than the Ambassador region
> split. But I think the consistency of splitting by Ambassador region is
> more valuable so I'll modify the mockup to employ that scheme!
Here's some static HTML mockups using the scheme Felix suggested:
What do you think? Does it work? North America looks a little weird...
how do you think it should be handled, or do you think it's fine?
Also do you notice any missing countries? India doesn't seem to have a
ambassadors mailing list