stas at stason
Jan 24, 2002, 10:26 PM
Post #9 of 16
> as usual thanks for the comments. you are very hard to
> please, but that is great in a way because then im sure you
> dont want a mediocre site!
Ouch, I feel like a customer that wants to be pleased :) I'm not. :)
>>The split logo is probably a bad idea :)
> agreed, but please look more at the idea of split graphic
> elements. i do like the idea of a left and right graphic
> element to balance the very top. it could have been the
> future mod_perl logo left and tt-logo right or whatever.
Well, my point is that you don't just put "something" to make it
ballanced. It should carry some meaning or be useful.
e.g. I was always thinking that having an image of a light bulb or a
sun/moon on the top corner of the page makes the page more alive :) Of
course this is not what we want :) But see the left bottom of this site:
I love it! as it adds a feeling of space, but the page is short, which
doesn't fit us. This is just an example of how in certain places
irrelevant images may improve the design.
>>I think I liked most of the previous version of yours more
> hmm, im off course sorry to hear that, especially because i
> thought i integrated some of your thoughts. (ie, the
> toolbar, the clearly seperation of content, leftmenu).
> personally i cant stand to look at my old offerings anymore :-)
yes, yes, I liked the integrations. But I didn't like changes of other
elements which I did like before. :)
>>Nice titles h1-h4
>>Nice TOC section's white spacing, but may look weird on long TOC
>>listings with no children items.
> have you got an example screenshot you can mail me?
No need for a screenshot, Just remove the children sub-trees and you
will see what I mean. Grouping helps when you have something in each
group. but if there are only parents, this extra spacing is not
beneficial. (but this is a minor nit, let's forget it for now)
>>>there is a complete new top located for a possible future
>>>some similar sort as the one shown.
>>>this is nice because it seperates logo(s) from everything
>>>else and as a side-effect it aligns the top of the header
>>>with the top of the menu.
>>but steals from the vertical space => more scrolling on short pages.
> i dont think people mind (that much) scrolling even short
> pages. look at linux.com, microsoft.com, perl.com, they have
> even more top-space pre-allocated if i remember correctly.
> maybe they dont have short pages?, i forgot
> we cant always have the best for all worlds and i do like
> the seperation of logos from everything else.
Well, me thinks that we don't have to follow anybody, we can be unique,
while re-using the good concepts we like on other sites. I personally
try to avoid clicking and scrolling as much as possible because the RSI
haunts me. So for me less scrolling is a good thing.
After we make this release I'll be working on the split version of the
site, like we have now here:
and then not needing to scroll will be a big plus!
>>>the menu is the same but the text is left-aligned
>>>(i still prefer centered. i agree with your arguments for
>>>left-aligness but my eyes like the centered version, it sort
>>>of makes the left-area more at home on the page, now it is a
>>>little bit like it want to go out of the page (to the left)).
>>it's because you are used to it :)
> likewise, you are used to a text-left-aligned menu :-)
Well I'm used to read right-to-left too (hebrew) so a right aligned menu
is fine with me too :), but I don't know any language that starts from
the middle :)
>>>the breadcrumb and header are now more integrated into each
>>>other, i think i like it but maybe its "overdesigned"? nah,
>>>i think it
>>>peps up some of all the docu-stuff on our pages. i mean it
>>>quite "dry" material we are working with.
>>I was actully thinking to do it the other way around. Move the prev|next
>>bar above the title and move the page title closer to the the 'table of
>>contents'. Any reason for trying to stick these together? They don't
>>belong to each other.
> well, the breadcrumb and title really are close relatives in
> the sense that we could completely skip the title and put
> right to the breadcrumb (i a _not_ suggesting we do this).
> the reason they are so close to the top is obviously because
> it is the title of the page which normally sits at the top.
> if we move the toolbar (search etc.) _above_ the title then
> my intuition is that they are global, ie the search is
> global for the site, the pdf download is global for the site
> etc. i like the tightness idea that this toolbar belongs to
> this - and only this - visited page, ie the search is local,
> the pdf download is local and the prev|up|next is local
> (more or less, but at least not global)
> however i will try and see if i can integrate some of your
> thoughts ...
No, no, your arguments are very good. Let's keep it that way.
BTW, remember the original design that everything has started from?
That's how it was -- the title sticking to the breadcrumb.
>>>the words "Table of Contents" now clearly acts as a starting
>>>point for the content which itself is now colored (very
>>>light yellow) and boxed.
>>>on index-pages the "teaser"-text is unboxed. i kinda like
>>>that, but it could easily be implemented into the yellow box-area.
>>I think that the title is the beginning of the content.
> i hear you and understand you, will look at it.
> btw, this background yellow color of the content can you now
> actually see it on your screen or should i try a darker color?
Nope, my LCD doesn't show it. I didn't know there was a bg color. How
about using some neutral darkish green color? I think it can be healthy
for the eyes, not sure if it fits though.
>>>the footer is now similar to the breadcrumb/header-bar. i
>>>need to implemet the tail just above this footer (the one
>>>with the tt-logo and html-valid-logos etc)
>>Hmm, you go for symmetry, it probably doesn't worse the effort since
>>most of the pages are very long so you will never notice the symmetry.
>>Also now you have to add another element -- the tail.
> well if you look at small content-pages it looks brilliant
> if i may so and it is only 35 pixels or so and we will have
> to a
> tail/footer anyway.
I agree, but what I don't like it that because of setting these
constraints some irrelevant parts start to act as important. Look at
this tail. Is 'ORA copyright note' is an important part? It should be
there in a very small letters and hardly be seen, definitely not the way
> i will try and integrate the tail so we can how that works out
>>>- more ads/books need implemented
>>what do you mean?
> just that, like in the current design i believe there are
> _all_ the books in the left pane.
I still don't understand what do you mean. Is it good, bad? Do you want
to have a single ad per page or more ads per page? Also notice that in
CVS I've changed the images to smaller ones.
I hope other people will chime in with their comments as they find time,
so it won't sound like Allan is trying to please me as I tend to provide
a bunch of negative (hopefuly constructive) comments :)
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