Mailing List Archive: ModPerl: Docs-dev

Houston, we have a problem...

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

netmaster at digital-word

Jan 18, 2002, 2:43 AM

Post #1 of 16 (1070 views)
Permalink

Houston, we have a problem...

Hey gang,

The design study at
http://www.apache.org/~stas/modperl-site/docs/2.0/api/mod_perl-2.0/APR/P
erlIO.html is not looking too good when browsing with MS IE6 on Win2K.

1) The menu panel is completely disfigured.
2) The font size is HUGE. I'm viewing on with a screen resolution of
1280 x 1024 - so I have to suggest that @ 800 x 600 on this platform,
these font's are going to look horrendous. Remember that 800 x 600 is
the most common screen resolution in use.
3) Regardless of the size of my browser window, I have a persistent
horizontal scroll bar. This is ugly and totally unnecessary.

I have placed a screen-capture online at
http://wypug.digital-word.com/miscellaneous/mod_perl_website.jpg.
Ignore the OS X cosmetics, the platform is IE6 on Win2K as stated above.

This needs to be fixed guys - I am beginning to believe that we might
not be able to do this layout without using tables.

FYI, I have also loaded the page into Netscape 6 on Win2K and it looks
great (apart from the huge fonts).

Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

lambretta at inet

Jan 18, 2002, 6:53 AM

Post #2 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

"Jonathan M. Hollin" wrote:
> The design study at
> http://www.apache.org/~stas/modperl-site/docs/2.0/api/mod_perl-2.0/APR/P
> erlIO.html is not looking too good when browsing with MS IE6 on Win2K.

MS IE6 - that is internet explorer 6+, right?

the little i have used that browser i find it still
pretty much beta with regard to fonts, so we might not even
be able to fix it at all (when we only use one stylesheet)
but im not at all sure and i can not check.

> This needs to be fixed guys - I am beginning to believe that we might
> not be able to do this layout without using tables.

> FYI, I have also loaded the page into Netscape 6 on Win2K and it looks
> great (apart from the huge fonts).

hmm, so its more like a system thing then ...

<OT>
> Ignore the OS X cosmetics the platform is IE6 on Win2K as stated above.
how could i ignore that?
is the chrome really that configurable for that platform?
</OT>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

netmaster at digital-word

Jan 18, 2002, 8:58 AM

Post #3 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

RE: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

:: MS IE6 - that is internet explorer 6+, right?

Correct.

:: the little i have used that browser i find it still
:: pretty much beta with regard to fonts, so we might not even
:: be able to fix it at all (when we only use one stylesheet)
:: but im not at all sure and i can not check.

Not true. IE6 is general release now, not beta. Font handling is
absolutely fine, I have never encountered problems before with HTML or
CSS. No problems with other websites either.

:: hmm, so its more like a system thing then ...

Oh it's definitely a browser thing (IE6). But I don't think that's the
issue. The problem, whether you like it or not, is that IE has >50%
market share according to BrowserWatch
(http://browserwatch.internet.com/stats/stats.html). On my own
web-servers IE (v4+) accounts for 82.6% of all traffic and I know many
webmasters who will offer similar reports. Now while I agree that we
should make our site 100% standards compliant, I'm concerned by these
figures.

:: <OT>
:: > Ignore the OS X cosmetics the platform is IE6 on Win2K as stated
:: > above.
:: how could i ignore that?
:: is the chrome really that configurable for that platform?

Windows 2000 is not all that skinnable in itself no. But with the
addition of the amazing software produced by Stardock
(http://www.stardock.com/) I can transform the desktop completely along
with about 95% of my installed applications. So my Windows 2000
environment has been customised to resemble Apple's OS X. However, I
did without that stupid dock and deployed a much more usable,
configurable and less distracting one. For those of you who have
interest in these things, I've put a screenshot on the web at:
http://wypug.digital-word.com/miscellaneous/w2k_aqua.jpg (656Kb).

:: </OT>

Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

stas at stason

Jan 18, 2002, 10:26 AM

Post #4 of 16 (1052 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

Jonathan M. Hollin wrote:

> Hey gang,
>
> The design study at
> http://www.apache.org/~stas/modperl-site/docs/2.0/api/mod_perl-2.0/APR/P
> erlIO.html is not looking too good when browsing with MS IE6 on Win2K.
>
> 1) The menu panel is completely disfigured.

sigh :( Any ideas why?

> 2) The font size is HUGE. I'm viewing on with a screen resolution of
> 1280 x 1024 - so I have to suggest that @ 800 x 600 on this platform,
> these font's are going to look horrendous. Remember that 800 x 600 is
> the most common screen resolution in use.

Well, I've placed your snapshot next to mozilla and the font is the same
(under 1280x1024 resolution), so it *is* big (not special in IE6), we
just should make it smaller.

> 3) Regardless of the size of my browser window, I have a persistent
> horizontal scroll bar. This is ugly and totally unnecessary.

again, any ideas why? and how to fix that

> I have placed a screen-capture online at
> http://wypug.digital-word.com/miscellaneous/mod_perl_website.jpg.
> Ignore the OS X cosmetics, the platform is IE6 on Win2K as stated above.
>
> This needs to be fixed guys - I am beginning to believe that we might
> not be able to do this layout without using tables.

sure we will, we don't have many choices. It's so simple with the
existing site, there is a plain page and it looks the same everywhere.

but man, what a pain...

I'm starting to think again about making it very simple, a flat page as
it is now on perl.apache.org, with the expandable menu on the *top* and
that's it. No troubles, no boxes, no complicated CSS or table workarounds.

Are you sure that once we figure out all the issues some other users on
browser foo platform bar will start complaining that it looks bad for
them or even worse, that's it's unusable.

> FYI, I have also loaded the page into Netscape 6 on Win2K and it looks
> great (apart from the huge fonts).

cool :)

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

netmaster at digital-word

Jan 18, 2002, 11:02 AM

Post #5 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

RE: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

:: > 1) The menu panel is completely disfigured.
::
:: sigh :( Any ideas why?

Stas, I have no idea why. However, it only seems to affect IE(6). NS6
displays this perfectly.

:: > 2) The font size is HUGE. I'm viewing on with a screen

:: Well, I've placed your snapshot next to mozilla and the font
:: is the same
:: (under 1280x1024 resolution), so it *is* big (not special in
:: IE6), we
:: just should make it smaller.

Agreed.

:: > 3) Regardless of the size of my browser window, I have a
:: persistent
:: > horizontal scroll bar. This is ugly and totally unnecessary.

:: again, any ideas why? and how to fix that

Again, no! :-( And, again, it's an IE thing - there's no scroll-bar
with NS6. It's already been pointed out (about a zillion times) that
MS' interpretation of CSS is non-standard... I guess this proves it.
However, I'm concerned that we're going to exclude the world's most used
web-browser for the sake of standards compliance. The annoying thing is
that tables would have prevented this, would have rendered across all
platforms (apart from text and specialist browsers) and ARE perfectly
valid and legitimate HTML when all said and done. I think we've all
been scratching the "standards" itch without really considering the
consequences - and I'm as guilty as everyone else.

:: > This needs to be fixed guys - I am beginning to believe
:: that we might
:: > not be able to do this layout without using tables.

:: sure we will, we don't have many choices. It's so simple with the
:: existing site, there is a plain page and it looks the same
:: everywhere.
::
:: but man, what a pain...

You said it.

:: I'm starting to think again about making it very simple, a
:: flat page as
:: it is now on perl.apache.org, with the expandable menu on
:: the *top* and
:: that's it. No troubles, no boxes, no complicated CSS or
:: table workarounds.

Oh hell, I don't know. Look at http://www.mysql.com/ - it's
professional, slick, clean and easy to use. It uses tables and some
CSS, it looks exactly the same in every browser I've tried it on. Isn't
that what we're trying to achieve?

:: Are you sure that once we figure out all the issues some
:: other users on
:: browser foo platform bar will start complaining that it
:: looks bad for
:: them or even worse, that's it's unusable.

I'm not sure no. I'm certain somebody, somewhere will complain - it's
inevitable. But look at the math - we need to cater for only two
browsers realistically, IE and NS. (I just know I'm going to get flamed
for these comments)

:: > FYI, I have also loaded the page into Netscape 6 on Win2K
:: and it looks
:: > great (apart from the huge fonts).
::
:: cool :)

Yes - it's definitely an IE problem. F&^k it, can't we just point a
ICBM at Redmond??? ;-)

Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

moseley at hank

Jan 18, 2002, 11:10 AM

Post #6 of 16 (1052 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

Jonathan says:
> - The menu panel is completely disfigured.
> - The font size is HUGE.
> - I am beginning to believe that we might
>not be able to do this layout without using tables.

Allan says:
> - i now have found a way to get rid of the tables we currently use
> - i really dont like the dark background-image
> - the font size is too small
> - why do we in fact show the books

And similar opinions from everyone else, both directions.

Too many cooks in the kitchen, so I'll try an keep my suggestions limited
from now on.

Here's my offer: I'd be willing to put in a two or three hundred dollars
for professional design help.

I know that's a crazy idea, so before anyone yells at me, read on, please.

I think all the designs are fine (ignoring the rendering problems for a
moment). Any of the designs could be frozen at this point and they would
be just fine.

The question is: can it be much better, and is that important?

I get almost 1/2 my income from mod_perl jobs. As a contractor I would
like to have a very professional looking mod_perl site -- it might just
bring in one extra job. Anything to keep me writing perl and paying the
bills is good. So I have more reasons to want a nice professional site
besides a nice functional mod_perl site for the open source community.

I asked my friends for design help with my old sailing club's web site a
few days ago. Yesterday they sent me a suggestion, and last night I
installed it. It's all template-toolkit driven.

http://www.cal-sailing.org
http://neptune.he.net/~csc/test/

I didn't have time to convert fonts and margins to CSS yet, but the tables
will stay, of course.

What does that have to do with the mod_perl site? Not much. It's nothing
that fancy. But it shows what a designer can do in a day. (It was also
interesting how easy it was to implement it in HTML once I had a completed
design -- not hours and hours of tweaking HTML to get a new design, just a
couple hours of tweaking HTML to make it look like the design.

If we really wanted to go professional I think we could get good value from
a web design firm at a good price these days. I've got my friends, but
they are busy and have pointed me to someone like
http://plumbline.com/see/index.html who they have worked with before.
$2500 might buy us two or three designs to pick from. That's a top-notch
design firm, at probably 1/3 the price of a year ago.

There's no doubt that a well designed web site can add value to the product.

Ok, it would never work. I doubt we could get that kind of money together.
And I doubt we could decide on the best design once presented to us. Plus
we would all have our own designers to suggest. And a design firm would
need a clear mission and a definition of what mod_perl (or the mod_perl
site) is, and a single point of contact to make final decisions. That
might be tough.

Anyway, I can see from Stas's last message that he's a bit frustrated.
Designing a web site with HTML and CSS is probably the hard way to go, as
that results in a lot of talk about things that are not really part of the
design. Web sites are not about tables or style sheets, they are about
communication.

Plus, too many cooks in the kitchen, as I said.

Ok, so much for crazy ideas. But I got to tell you, after screwing with
that sailing site a few weeks ago trying to come up with a design of my
own, it sure was nice (and time saving) having a design professional solve
my problem. Think how happy your boss or clients have been when you, as a
professional, have come to the reduce with mod_perl/perl.

--
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley [at] hank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

moseley at hank

Jan 18, 2002, 11:21 AM

Post #7 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

Damn spell checkers:

At 10:10 AM 01/18/02 -0800, Bill Moseley wrote:
>Ok, so much for crazy ideas. But I got to tell you, after screwing with
>that sailing site a few weeks ago trying to come up with a design of my
>own, it sure was nice (and time saving) having a design professional solve
>my problem. Think how happy your boss or clients have been when you, as a
>professional, have come to the reduce with mod_perl/perl.
^^^^^^
rescue

--
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley [at] hank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

netmaster at digital-word

Jan 19, 2002, 3:11 PM

Post #8 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

RE: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

:: I get almost 1/2 my income from mod_perl jobs. As a
:: contractor I would like to have a very professional looking
:: mod_perl site -- it might just bring in one extra job.
:: Anything to keep me writing perl and paying the bills is
:: good. So I have more reasons to want a nice professional
:: site besides a nice functional mod_perl site for the open
:: source community.

[cut]

+1

Bill, I have cut most of your email only to keep down noise. You have
put forward a brilliant argument, as usual. I agree with almost
everything you wrote. I too am convinced that we need a professional
website to back up one of the most powerful and useful tools available
to Perl developers - mod_perl.

I am a web-developer and application programmer. When I consult with a
client about his website or intranet, a large part of my job is
introducing them to technologies that they often aren't aware of. In
any instance where CGI is involved, I always advocate mod_perl. I also
have to justify my recommendations, arguing against the big name branded
solutions. I don't do this because I hate Microsoft, or because I won't
dirty my hands with anything other than open-source software, or for any
other reason. I do this because I believe I have found the best
platform to develop web applications on - LAMP (and also because I am
more familiar with these technologies than any others).

Naturally I present my clients with as much information and as many
reference URL's as necessary. However, neither the Apache nor the
mod_perl website are "professional" from a design point of view, and for
the developer community they don't need to be (we only need the docs!).
However, from an advocacy viewpoint they really fail. They just don't
reflect on the quality, stability or performance of the platform at all.

As far as Apache is concerned, it probably doesn't matter. Most IT
people (sometimes even the managers) know of and respect Apache (it's
hard not to eh?) - but mod_perl really needs to be promoted, and often
to people who say things like "you should use C or Java for server
applications - Perl's just a scripting language".

When the going gets tough with clients like this I have two invaluable
reference documents I point them to:

1) Ian Kallen's "Industrial Strength Publishing" (salon.com) -
http://www.salon.com/contact/staff/idk/print.html, and
2) Perrin Harkins' "Building a Large-scale E-commerce Site with Apache
and mod_perl" - http://www.perl.com/pub/a/2001/10/17/etoys.html

Thank you Perrin and Ian - these papers are extremely persuasive! :-)

The point of all this (finally) - we need a website that is professional
and that reflects the quality of the product. We need to promote
mod_perl. We need advocacy/promotion/marketing to be prominent - with
the developer/technical documentation in its own, separate section.

Now I realise that we are coming to the end of the development phase of
the website. Also, like Bill, I sense the frustration growing here as
the same old arguments get batted back and forth (email ping pong). So
my suggestions are not for immediate implentation. However, I feel that
we should be aiming towards this in the future.

As Bill points out, "it might just bring in one extra job"... It would
also go a long way to ensuring that mod_perl remains a "hot" technology
according to public opinion.

By the way... If there are any other documents similar to the two
described above, which advocate mod_perl with such detail, can you
please send me the URL's. Documents such as these are powerful
marketing tools and I could always use more. :-)

Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

stas at stason

Jan 19, 2002, 8:49 PM

Post #9 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

Jonathan M. Hollin wrote:

> :: I'm starting to think again about making it very simple, a
> :: flat page as
> :: it is now on perl.apache.org, with the expandable menu on
> :: the *top* and
> :: that's it. No troubles, no boxes, no complicated CSS or
> :: table workarounds.
>
> Oh hell, I don't know. Look at http://www.mysql.com/ - it's
> professional, slick, clean and easy to use. It uses tables and some
> CSS, it looks exactly the same in every browser I've tried it on. Isn't
> that what we're trying to achieve?

OK, so may be we just copy all the HTML/CSS from mysql.com? I mean the
markup needed to setup cross-platform boxes/layout?

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

stas at stason

Jan 19, 2002, 9:18 PM

Post #10 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

Bill Moseley wrote:

> Jonathan says:
>
>>- The menu panel is completely disfigured.
>>- The font size is HUGE.
>>- I am beginning to believe that we might
>>not be able to do this layout without using tables.
>>
>
> Allan says:
>
>>- i now have found a way to get rid of the tables we currently use
>>- i really dont like the dark background-image
>>- the font size is too small
>>- why do we in fact show the books
>>
>
> And similar opinions from everyone else, both directions.
>
> Too many cooks in the kitchen, so I'll try an keep my suggestions limited
> from now on.

We actually have two cooks in the house, Allan and Thomas, the rest are
testing on different platforms and occasionaly suggest cool ideas :) So
I think we are doing quite well controversy-wise.

Please don't confuse 'bug' reports with 'wish' reports. The only
controversy so far was the font size.

> Here's my offer: I'd be willing to put in a two or three hundred dollars
> for professional design help.

You know that you cannot do much with US$300 and even much more.

You also forget that professional looking sites are many times a hell to
maintain. Unless you or somebody else wishes to stand out and volunteer
to maintain such a site, I don't think it's a good idea.

> I know that's a crazy idea, so before anyone yells at me, read on, please.
>
> I think all the designs are fine (ignoring the rendering problems for a
> moment). Any of the designs could be frozen at this point and they would
> be just fine.
>
> The question is: can it be much better, and is that important?

I think the solution can be completely different. We may need to create
another site which pitches mod_perl as a technology. perl.apache.org is
the documentation/resources site. This is just an idea of course. In
this case you go crazy and create this very slick professional site,
which probably doesn't need to be maintained as it's not going to change.

Again, I'm not against professionaly looking site. All I want is to make
easier the lives of those who use mod_perl already, i.e. in their daily
use of mod_perl documentation and other resources. Therefore it's
possible that these two ideas contradict.

May be modperl.org or modperl.com should be the 'sale' points.

> I asked my friends for design help with my old sailing club's web site a
> few days ago. Yesterday they sent me a suggestion, and last night I
> installed it. It's all template-toolkit driven.
>
> http://www.cal-sailing.org
> http://neptune.he.net/~csc/test/

May be I'm the wrong person to judge, but I don't think this site is
professional at all. Or may be it's just my browser :) If you think it's
professionaly looking, you probably know better, so scratch my comment. :)

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

moseley at hank

Jan 19, 2002, 11:27 PM

Post #11 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

At 12:18 PM 01/20/02 +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
>> Here's my offer: I'd be willing to put in a two or three hundred dollars
>> for professional design help.
>
>You know that you cannot do much with US$300 and even much more.

Yes, you are right. My $300 won't go far.

>You also forget that professional looking sites are many times a hell to
>maintain. Unless you or somebody else wishes to stand out and volunteer
>to maintain such a site, I don't think it's a good idea.

I thought things like TT and perl made all that stuff easy! You mean it
doesn't? ;) I bet if a designer gave you a design mocked up in Photoshop
that you would be able to implement it in TT. And the designer would
likely have no idea how to make any dynamic content work, but that would be
no trouble for you.

>May be modperl.org or modperl.com should be the 'sale' points.

Like Chris does with OI? Sure why not. I'd rather have a single point on
the web for mod_perl, but that's just my opinion.

--
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley [at] hank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

stas at stason

Jan 19, 2002, 11:55 PM

Post #12 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

Bill Moseley wrote:

> At 12:18 PM 01/20/02 +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
>
>>>Here's my offer: I'd be willing to put in a two or three hundred dollars
>>>for professional design help.
>>>
>>You know that you cannot do much with US$300 and even much more.
>>
>
> Yes, you are right. My $300 won't go far.
>
>
>>You also forget that professional looking sites are many times a hell to
>>maintain. Unless you or somebody else wishes to stand out and volunteer
>>to maintain such a site, I don't think it's a good idea.
>>
>
> I thought things like TT and perl made all that stuff easy! You mean it
> doesn't? ;) I bet if a designer gave you a design mocked up in Photoshop
> that you would be able to implement it in TT. And the designer would
> likely have no idea how to make any dynamic content work, but that would be
> no trouble for you.

No, what I meant is that many times a design made for a certain content
doesn't scale when used with many different contents. Think long page,
short page, a page with long sections, a page with short sections, etc.

>>May be modperl.org or modperl.com should be the 'sale' points.
>>
>
> Like Chris does with OI? Sure why not. I'd rather have a single point on
> the web for mod_perl, but that's just my opinion.

Well, if we can sure, but if it's too much of work, we could have
something like perlworks.apache.org or similar, or hosted elsewhere. We
already have take23.org, which is not a part of the same site.

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

moseley at hank

Jan 20, 2002, 12:13 AM

Post #13 of 16 (1051 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

At 02:55 PM 01/20/02 +0800, Stas Bekman wrote:
>No, what I meant is that many times a design made for a certain content
>doesn't scale when used with many different contents. Think long page,
>short page, a page with long sections, a page with short sections, etc.

Right. I think it's common for designers to come up with a front page
where they can have full control of the look, and then create designs that
work with the front page (contain the same design elements) for second and
maybe third level pages that can more easily work with various content
requirements.

Luckily, I think for the most part mod_perl's content is reasonably
consistent.

Seems I can no longer ignore my drive errors on my cvs machine -- Samba is
failing to work on that machine, too, now. Yikes! Just what I need.

--
Bill Moseley
mailto:moseley [at] hank

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

netmaster at digital-word

Jan 20, 2002, 10:20 AM

Post #14 of 16 (1051 views)
Permalink

RE: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

:: We actually have two cooks in the house, Allan and Thomas,
:: the rest are
:: testing on different platforms and occasionaly suggest cool
:: ideas :) So
:: I think we are doing quite well controversy-wise.

+1

:: I think the solution can be completely different. We may
:: need to create
:: another site which pitches mod_perl as a technology.
:: perl.apache.org is
:: the documentation/resources site. This is just an idea of course. In
:: this case you go crazy and create this very slick professional site,
:: which probably doesn't need to be maintained as it's not
:: going to change.

+1

:: Again, I'm not against professionaly looking site. All I
:: want is to make
:: easier the lives of those who use mod_perl already, i.e. in
:: their daily
:: use of mod_perl documentation and other resources. Therefore it's
:: possible that these two ideas contradict.

+1

:: May be modperl.org or modperl.com should be the 'sale' points.

+1

I'd definitely appreciate a second website and I think Stas has just the
right idea here.

Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

netmaster at digital-word

Jan 20, 2002, 10:33 AM

Post #15 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

RE: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

:: No, what I meant is that many times a design made for a
:: certain content
:: doesn't scale when used with many different contents. Think
:: long page,
:: short page, a page with long sections, a page with short
:: sections, etc.

I've seen this on many websites. But if a design doesn't scale it's
often because the HTML coding is wrong, not because of an inherent
failure in the design. I have implemented templates (from designers) on
many websites and have never had the design "break" as a result of
unusual content.

Jonathan M. Hollin - WYPUG Co-ordinator
West Yorkshire Perl User Group
http://wypug.pm.org/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

stas at stason

Jan 20, 2002, 10:46 AM

Post #16 of 16 (1050 views)
Permalink

Re: Houston, we have a problem... [In reply to]

Jonathan M. Hollin wrote:

> :: No, what I meant is that many times a design made for a
> :: certain content
> :: doesn't scale when used with many different contents. Think
> :: long page,
> :: short page, a page with long sections, a page with short
> :: sections, etc.
>
> I've seen this on many websites. But if a design doesn't scale it's
> often because the HTML coding is wrong, not because of an inherent
> failure in the design. I have implemented templates (from designers) on
> many websites and have never had the design "break" as a result of
> unusual content.

Agreed, it was a 'thing to watch after' comment :)

_____________________________________________________________________
Stas Bekman JAm_pH -- Just Another mod_perl Hacker
http://stason.org/ mod_perl Guide http://perl.apache.org/guide
mailto:stas [at] stason http://ticketmaster.com http://apacheweek.com
http://singlesheaven.com http://perl.apache.org http://perlmonth.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-dev-unsubscribe [at] perl
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-dev-help [at] perl

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads