-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Copied it over to the production site with some changes; I would like the Documentation header to link to the ./docs page as it does now instead of over to the wiki as you originally had it. Unfortunately there is now a different issue with the sidebar. On short pages like the support page the sidebar gradient is truncated, leaving impossible-to-read white on white text: http://trinitydesktop.org/support.php Quick fix? Thanks! Tim

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 16:20:11 -0500 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote: I think what I just pushed should do it. (There is scrollable blank space at the bottoms of some pages, but I don't consider that a major defect.) E. Liddell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Yep saw that--fixed and copied to main site. You might want to pull from GIT so that your copy is up to date before committing anything else. :-) Thanks! Tim

Hi, I'm so sorry to say this, but I do not find that the new website design honors the work that has been done to renew the TDEUI. Don't take it personally, but I almost prefer the old website. The colors were brighter. For the various graphic work I did here, I provided tens and tens of variants, to make sure that it was right for everyone, but this website popped out, without any improvements before going to production. I asked for a preview with a provided graphic gradient, and you didn't even answered at all. 1.First of all, it really has to grow to follow the browser's window size, without stopping at a definite place, leaving the user think that it is a bug. And in the left-top and right directions. 2.Also, the TDE logo position and the title vertical alignment does not follow the new TDEUI that much, leaving the title on the line of the ribbon, instead of well centered between the top of the page and the ribbon. 3.Then, there is something just wrong with the strong contrast created with the top images and the rest of the site. If the text was in kind of rounded rectangle, filled with white, on a blue background, it would fit much better and look smoother too. Just like the new TDEUI. 4.If the font could be forced to be something like Arial, it would be much better, because it looks strange on browsers set to display text in Times New Roman. It will be better, but it needs some polish. Just my 2 cents... -Alexandre

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Whoops, that should read "sudden deployment" above. Spell check. :-) Tim

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:07:27 -0400 Alexandre <ac586133(a)hotmail.com> wrote: S'okay, I figured out a long time ago that a critique of my work is not a critique of me personally. I'm sorry. I have migraines pretty much constantly at this time of year. It causes some lower-priority items to be put off. That was one of them. I didn't expect the site to be rolled out in such a hurry. There's a tension there between readability (which requires a relatively narrow text block) and what looks good to people with really large screens. I don't think I've ever seen a design that completely resolves it to my satisfaction--most of them either expand until the text block is unreadable or do pretty much what I've done (except that they often don't allow any flexibility for smaller screens, either). Expanding just the header would look odd. I could have the header expand and then center the text block under it, I suppose . . . but that just moves the whitespace around. That's a relatively easy fix (I hope), and I'll look at it after work. Thing is, the plain black-on-white text is likely to be more readable for people with certain kinds of vision problems . . . but I'll see about doing a mock-up anyway, to go along with the one with the gradient. I'm against forcing the font of the main text block to anything, because I assume that if a user has his or her browser set to display in Times New Roman (or Webdings, for that matter), they've done it on purpose, because they find it easier to read or it has other desirable qualities. To my mind, that trumps "looks strange". E. Liddell

On Wed, 15 Oct 2014 22:36:31 -0500 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote: Pushed. (Mea culpa--I should have fixed it before.) E. Liddell

Hi, I downloaded the website with httrack. I'll try to look at small ways to improve it. The frame is good, but it needs improvements. I'll post screenshots when I can. -Alexandre

On Friday 17 of October 2014 02:21:48 E. Liddell wrote: Just by chance I came to the page with mailing-lists. I have a little smaller browser window, the result is seen in the screen shot. -- Slávek

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:06:04 +0900 Michele Calgaro <michele.calgaro(a)yahoo.it> wrote: It's the PRE blocks containing the top-posting demonstration. I've committed a fix that re-wraps those, which should be okay down to something below 800 x 600. E. Liddell

On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 11:14:37 -0400 Alexandre <ac586133(a)hotmail.com> wrote: [...] Here you go. Unfortunately, when I see a webpage with no whitespace at the edges, the first thing that pops into my head is, "The 1990s called--they want their aesthetic back." All it needs is a few old-style frames. ;P Also, the grey gradient you provided doesn't look good to me with the other graphics. (In other words, the version doesn't do much for me.) E. Liddell

Hi, To my personal preference, it's the best version of the website. I'd prefer it to stay with the lightsilver gradient, but if you really don't want, can you at least keep the dark blue gradient I provided. I looks much better without white border all around. I don't know what tells you that it's only obsolete websites that are expanding to the full browser size. Most big websites such as facebook.com, outlook.com, gmail.com, webs.com are filling the screen. Seeing it as obsolete doesn't hold to me! Just my way of seeing it, but the screenshot provided has the version I prefer... Have a great day! -Alexandre -Alexandre

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 18:06:54 -0500 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote: My reaction may be idiosyncratic--I saw an awful lot of those frame-at-the-top frame-at-the-side pages back in the day (and coded the odd one myself). Here you go. E. Liddell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Used properly (tastefully) I see no problem with it. Let's see what it looks like. Tim

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 21:24:26 -0400 Alexandre <ac586133(a)hotmail.com> wrote: I've used italic rather than underlining in these, to avoid telegraphing false information about what is or isn't a link. IMHO, it should still improve distinction. First screenshot uses Alexandre's shadow. The second uses the CSS3 box-shadow attribute (this has the advantage of not requiring an additional image, but won't work in Konqueror and may be "too much" shadow for Alexandre's taste). E. Liddell

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 16:39:24 -0500 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote: The problem with that is that it involves extra work (possibly significant extra work, if we want to use the effect on other screenshots on the site), because every time the screenshot is changed, someone will have to produce a new "reflection" graphic. It also increases the vertical space needed for each image to which it's applied by around 1/3, and might require moving or removing the "More screenshots" link (you'll notice that your sample image does not have text directly below it). E. Liddell

On Monday 20 of October 2014 01:05:57 Alexandre wrote: I'd prefer shadow using CSS - without additional image. -- Slávek

Hi, Well, it's okay for me to have the CSS3 shadow if it is harmless for Konqueror. These little adjustments improves a lot the website and I think that these changes are ready to go to production. What do you think? Thank you! -Alexandre

On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:10:41 -0500 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf(a)pearsoncomputing.net> wrote: There may be a problem with the stylesheet on screens where the main text area is shorter than the sidebar. I'm trying to figure out a fix. E. Liddell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Looks good overall, however I prefer the non-italicised header links. Was there any previous discussion on that UI element? If not, what is the rationale behind italicizing those links? I personally have a hard time determining they are links instead of noninteractive headers when they are italicized. Thanks! Tim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 OK, thanks for the info. Alexandre, do you see a problem with making the headers non-underlined and non-italic? The color differences set them apart well enough for me. Also, while I haven't had time to evaluate a proper overhaul of the patch pages I have at least modified the backend so as to allow pagination. Patches are now available by default in 100-patch lists, starting with the newest. Everything else currently functions the same as before. E. Liddell, now that the patches page is a little easier to work with, can you send me an example of what the aforementioned css-driven table should look like? I can implement the changes quickly on this end. Thanks! Tim

On Tue, 21 Oct 2014 10:59:28 -0400 Alexandre <ac586133(a)hotmail.com> wrote: I honestly don't think the italics are necessary either--the headers are differently-coloured, in slightly larger text, and outdented relative to the links below them. In the end, webpage design is a form of user interface design, and it's just as prone to the problem of the universe creating bigger and better idiots as any other form of programming. If you can imagine a mistake, there's always someone out there somewhere who's capable of making it. ;P That's at the bottom of my priority list right now, until the design is otherwise finalized and I'm reasonably sure the size isn't going to change again. E. Liddell

It's not very important. You can update the site with italic if you wish to. -Alexandre

On Sun, 26 Oct 2014 10:06:30 -0400 Alexandre <ac586133(a)hotmail.com> wrote: See the "new website - patches" thread. I have to get the wiki and bugzilla skins matching first. E. Liddell

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 And we're on the new site! There is a glitch in the Wiki still; as soon as E. Liddell gets a fix to me I'll officially announce the updates. Tim

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Copied to main site. I've also properly sized the first screenshot preview; I think 71k is a perfectly acceptable size for an image file on the home page. ;-) Tim

On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 13:22:52 +0200 Slávek Banko <slavek.banko(a)axis.cz> wrote: The problem there is the format of the table, which is outside my control, since it's generated by code I didn't write. It's just got too many fields in it. Two possible fixes: -combine the date, time, and GMT offset fields into one field. Then the separate bits of date-time information would arrange themselves one below the other if the screen width is too narrow, instead of trying to stay side-by-side. Alternatively, convert all dates to GMT or some other constant timezone and ditch the offset field to get a bit more space. -remove the WIDTH="50%" stipulation from the last field of the table. Doing only this means that the table will look bad once you get it down below a certain width, though, so it's best combined with a rework of the date columns. (This page was extremely difficult to work with due to its size. Does it really need to contain every single commit going back to 2009? Maybe it would be better just to keep the last six months' worth or the last few hundred?) E. Liddell