joshua at slive
Apr 24, 2008, 6:32 AM
Post #22 of 35
(388 views)
Permalink
|
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fielding[at]gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > What are you talking about Roy? I don't want to get into this
> > argument, but just checking one of the those three example sites (the
> > last one), I found all three of the "flaws" that Nick was after: does
> > not reflow properly for very-small screens, sets font size to 62.5% of
> > the user's default, and uses the transitional DOCTYPE.
> >
>
> I am talking about your vague handwaving about small font == modern.
> That's a load of crap. If you look at pages that have been designed
> by actual designers, they don't use a bunch of tiny fonts for the
> primary content (only for things like legal fine print/credits).
The pages you pointed to as examples used <100% for their default text
fonts (at least the ones I checked). If you're trying to make an
empirical argument, start by checking the data.
I'm not saying the font currently used on www.apache.org is the best
choice. I was making a particular point to Nick, who is a little bit
of a purest (for reasons I fully understand). I agree that the font is
a little too small and the background would look better in white.
> As far as modern design is concerned, it simply isn't true that
> cropping all the images on the page when the window is shrunk is
> better than establishing a fixed minimum for the design. Scrollbars
> work better than missing content.
www.apache.org doesn't do the cropping. I made that change for Nick.
Which just goes to show why I stated in my original email that I
wasn't interested in nitpicking the design with a bunch of back-seat
quarterbacks. Everyone has different opinions about what constitutes
good design. I was trying to adopt something that had a pretty-obvious
consensus positive opinion.
> So, in short, -1. The logo will not change without a full vote of
> the PMC
When was the last time the PMC had a "full vote" on anything?
But if you are feeling that obstructionist about it, that is fine with
me. I'll drop the whole thing.
> If you want to improve other things
> about our site, then go ahead and test out those other things.
> I'll bet that you can completely change the look and feel of the
> site without touching the logo and without using tiny fonts,
> and while you are at it please remove the stupid ApacheCon ad.
No way am I playing that game. Our docs have always worked under the
rule that the person who does the work gets to make the decisions.
That is important both to encourage people to take on these tasks, and
because docs changes aren't verifiable and testable like code changes.
They often come down to taste. Trying to satisfy everyone's taste on
website design is a hopeless black-hole of time and energy, and I'm
not interested.
By the way, I am in complete agreement that the three sites you posted
as examples have a design far superior to either the old or new design
we are talking about (although I can't imagine any of them are very
usable on your Blackberry). What's the difference? Two things: some
serious skills and effort in graphic design, plus significant work to
meld the design and content. The design from www.apache.org lived
within the existing content structure.
It would be great to see someone really rethink the site (necessarily
both content and design) to get to something truly better. But of
course, if they have to pass the Roy taste test at the end, there is
little incentive to start.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe[at]httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help[at]httpd.apache.org
|
smime.p7s
httpd_logo_wide_trans.png
1
