-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 <snip> I didn't know that. Thanks for all the info! On thinking about this further I wonder how hard it would be to replace our KHTML with KDE's KHTML. I don't want to drag in a bunch of KDE libraries but there was an effort some time ago to make certain core KDE features use less of the non-core KDE libraries. Does anyone know the status of KHTML in KDE4? Is it just as broken as our version or has it been maintained over time? I was under the impression that KHTML had been largely abandoned but now I'm not sure... Thanks! Tim

Looks great so far, this definitely addresses major shortcomings of the last website (I.E the nav links never really worked out well) Actually, you don't want to use percentages past a certain point because things tend to get very wide, and thus hard to read. I think what would be to set the content background to white, and the background to be a subtle grey, this has the advantage of keeping things visually tight, instead of being a visual canyon. I think this is actually a bit of a problem for the news entries too, small things like a horizontal rule, or box around entries might make it more clear. I would also recommend moving the page header into the content, and leaving the current header as 'trinity desktop' because the eyes skip over the header, assuming it doesn't change, it wasn't until i said 'these pages need headers" when I realized they were hidden what my mind took as the site logo, a static piece of content Also, there are 2 home links. not sure why. On 15 October 2014 17:39, Michael . &lt;keltoiboy(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Not bad; I didn't even notice the change until I read the previous messages. If others approve I can push it up to the main site. Tim

On Wednesday 15 October 2014 23:43:05 Timothy Pearson wrote: I know that I am only one, but please, no! I am not the only partially sighted person in the world, but I can speak only for myself. There are so few usable sites, becoming fewer, and I love the "cavernous" version. I was thrilled when I saw it. It is so clear and easy to see. I have been dreading change and "modernisation". As proposed, this was great. All these decorative backgrounds make life so difficult. The new site as it is now is an improvement on the old. The proposed version is not really. It is harder to look at. The idea of the site is surely to inform? Please *inform* as well as possible. ;-) Lisi

The advantage of percentages is they work to screen size/ resolution. Other methods don't and a site can look very different from one machine to the next. Lisi, I understand and respect your position but knowing other people who are also partially sighted myself included, my left eye only has about 15% capability, I am also speaking for myself from experience. This screenshot is just awkward. I have a widescreen to make things easy for me, and others who use it, so much "vacant land" so to speak with everything jammed in one segment doesn't make things easy for some people. I made a suggestion I won't fuss on about it any further. Cheers. Michael.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Yeah it is pretty bad, trouble is I don't know what to do about it. I'm also not sure why it is coming out that way in the first place; on my system (granted not ultra-widescreen but still 16:9) I only have a tiny white border. Tim

Meh, A lot of knee jerk reactions in the thread which is sad. One purpose of setting a dark (no not a flashing GIF as lisi slippery-sloped me into earlier) is to give the page more of a "piece of paper" feeling. With a darker background, a crazy wide monitor the site focuses the user on the contents of the page, and on a narrower monitor it will just barely show up, or not at all. About a year ago I developed a queryable database for biologists, and I used this method, a fixed width, and a clear 'page' to it. I think it looks good, is extremely functional, and isn't full any modern design http://pogo.ece.drexel.edu/about.php I was alluding to something along the lines of that website. On 15 October 2014 20:38, Dan Youngquist &lt;dan(a)homestead-products.com&gt; wrote:

Timothy Pearson composed on 2014-10-15 20:49 (UTC-0500): Summary: Thinking in pixels is absolutely the wrong thing to do in web styling. It's why there's so much difficulty using the web, why people routinely use zoom and other browser defense mechanisms. Saying 2560 resolution is "wide" doesn't mean anything without knowing whether the text size used on it can only fit 15 words (roughly twice optimal line length) or has room for 30 words (way too long for comfortable reading[1]). Setting a paragraph max-width in em (or rem) would be exactly the right thing to do here. Details: 2560 wide on a 40" screen is very much different than 2560 wide on a 27" screen. Without knowing how tightly the pixels are packed, they have no correlation to physical size, much less to whatever physical sizes are appropriate to the user and his environment, how many pixels it takes to render a comfortably sized glyph. Even if you knew the physical size, you still would have no clue to viewing distance, or visual acuity of the user. 2560x1440 on 27" packs them into a space 597mm wide by 336mm high, 2010 sq cm. 2560x1440 on 40" is 885mm wide by 498mm high, and 4411 sq cm, 219% of the space of 27" even though only 148% of its height or width. Luckily, you don't need to care about resolution, or density. Computers deal with that automatically, so let them. As designer all you need to or should care about is the relationships between the page's parts. While you could do that in pixels, they do not adapt to user requirements. In fact, pixels wholly and utterly disregard them. Instead, you can use rem and/or em units, the size of letter glyphs. If it's easier on you to visualize, convert the letters to words (increases required math, but it works on the same principles). You could use %, but that too has no predictable relationship to physical size, only to available space. IOW, think how many letters tall, or how many words wide should a space be. If you want a left side menu block to fit 20 letters, make it that many letters wide (~10rem, because letters average half the width of the height that equates to a CSS "size"). If you want a paragraph to be no more than 14 words wide, decide how many letters in your average words (e.g. 6), multiply by 14 (84), then divide by 2 (half height equals average width), and you get 42em for max-width. Let the computer figure out how many pixels that requires based on however many the browser has had its default size set to to make the default the user's optimal reading size. The new site already has the basics right by respecting the user's default text size. It just could a bit of restraint so that people looking at higher density screens than average get to see things in reasonable (and similar) proportions instead of seeing masses of empty space if they fullscreen their browsers. Saying 2560 resolution is "wide" doesn't mean anything without knowing whether the text size used on it can only fit 15 words (roughly twice optimal line length) or has room for 30 words (way too long for comfortable reading). Setting a paragraph max-width in rem would be exactly the right thing to do here. [1] see e.g. http://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/

I have done some work on the home page and css file.So far it works beautifully on my laptop and also on my desktop. I can reduce the width on my desktop and the page reformats itself accordingly. There are 2 issues, 1 of which is on the original page as well. 1. As you scroll down the page there is a huge amount of white space at the bottom. It appears to be bigger than the textblock. I think I know what is causing this and will sort it out tomorrow. 2. The banner at the top. When I saved the site to my laptop it mustn't have save all the pictures used in the logo. I am missing the flat tri colour stripe but have the wavy part. Without the flat part the tri colour doesn't go right across the top section. Apart from those two issues and a little tidying up everything is done. I will finish the tidying up tomorrow and either post it as a screen shot or post a link to my dropbox for people to peruse at their leisure. Cheers. Michael. On 16 October 2014 18:27, Gerhard Zintel &lt;gerhard.zintel(a)mrs-thomas.de&gt; wrote:

On Thursday 16 October 2014 12:39:22 E. Liddell wrote: Try to persuade Waitrose to give you a job. I love your site - and I have to manage to buy my groceries every week from Waitrose. :-( (Their site is one of my pet bugbears.) It is so refreshing to meet a site that seems to have a priority of giving information. If I want "pretty" I'll go to KDE-look.org and chose a new screensaver or background. And anyway, I think that it looks nice. But then I like things to look functional. Compare Brunel's beautiful suspension bridge at Clifton 1), designed by an engineer to work, with the Millennium bridge 2), designed by an architect to look nice. It doesn't look nice, and when people first crossed it, it swayed. Thank you very much for your site. I hope that we are going to be allowed to keep it! Lisi 1) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=clifton+suspension+bridge&es_sm=93&am… 2) https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=millennium+bridge+london&es_sm=93&…

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Please do work on it; this project is supposed to be about getting to the best solution even if some toes are stepped on in the process. I draw the line at personal insults/attacks/etc, but other than that it's best to keep the arguments here instead of obliviously releasing a bad product and having the criticisms all show up on various news sites and comment boards. :-) Tim

That's a common misconception that sites designed to suit big screens make you scroll around if you're on a smaller screen. 2 facts need to be understood. 1. It is the amount of content on a page that makes users scroll around. 2. Using percentages makes the page adjust itself on difference resolutions and screen sizes. If you use a fixed width and someone on a small screen has to scroll around because there is so much content then so does someone with a larger screen. You saw my screenshot The exact same content, not the same look is on my laptop. I have to scroll on both screens but it would be nice if I didn't have to on my desktop because of design features. If you use % then the page adapts itself to suit the screen. If you don't want to scroll around the only solution is less information on each page. On 17 October 2014 00:09, Felmon Davis &lt;davisf(a)union.edu&gt; wrote:

Apart from 1 unit at university on basic Xhtml and css I am self taught. At uni we were never told of RWD, I enjoyed the unit but it seemed to lack content so I never went any further at uni, I am grateful for the links you provided. On 17 October 2014 08:25, Serghei Amelian &lt;serghei(a)thel.ro&gt; wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 You stated your point clearly, and I agree with it. The basic functionality you describe has been available since the dawn of the Internet; modern designs should not interfere with it (within limits of course; at some point the graphics won't allow the page to compress any further horizontally--the current page reaches this point at around 600 pixels wide, which is fine as far as I am concerned). Tim

On Thursday 16 October 2014 22:19:41 Michael . wrote: I think they are referring to having to scroll HORIZONTALLY because of the bad design. Lou

On Thursday 16 October 2014, Calvin Morrison wrote: My comment was triggered by looking at your mentioned example I'm not happy with those kind of sites using with smaller screens. I totally agree that having a maximum width could be of benefit depending on the content. But it should reformat at smaller sizes. If this is possible I'm fully satisfied. Gerhard

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA224 Careful...this sounds just a tad insulting. As mentioned on-list even though the *screen* is bigger than 1024 pixels wide doesn't mean the *browser* is set to that width. This is after all a true windowing system that can have many restored windows of different sizes (unlike "Window 8" ;-)). You are also forgetting those of us who have mobile devices; while I wouldn't dream of doing real intensive work on them I do from time to time load up a Web page to check something or other. I detest the pages that make me scroll back and forth every line to read text (Weather Underground classic scientific forecaster discussion, I'm looking at you!) Please try to be civil. TDE is actually quite large, and as open source projects go fairly healthy. So we're not the size of KDE or Gnome, so what? Tim

On 16 October 2014 11:38, Dan Youngquist &lt;dan(a)homestead-products.com&gt; wrote: not change the perspective of what is on the screen by much. I don't expect anything to change for my benefit and I don't believe my comments indicate unreasonable expectations. Timothy asked for opinions and I voiced mine. Timothy if it's ok with you I'd like to play with this, would you mind sharing the code for the site? Cheers. Michael.

In the Wiki section, the items under "Main site" on the left hand side menu still points to the development version site. Need to be updated to point to the public TDE site. Cheers Michele