* Daniel Gruno wrote: > > As a user, I'd like to see relevant information. It must be possible to > > get the relevant information without javascript (yes!) and without > > random clicking (what should I expect from a non-descriptive arrow-link > > which feels like an adverstisement?). > > I disagree with the use of the word 'must' here, 'should' is a much > nicer word to use when one has only personal preference behind ones > css+noscript combo (identical comment further down, I write in reverse).
A page, where content is not reachable (also for search indexers), is useless. If you like "should" better, fine. We should not build such a thing. I have similar problems (and I'm not the only one) with the recent python.org relaunch. We have to try to be helpful, not fancy in the first place. > > > Which means, all maintained releases should be visible at once. That > > has nothing to do with Apache, that's a simple observation, how people > > look on software pages. > > A counter-observation is that a big wall of text, where everything looks > the same, isn't preferable either. Nobody says, that everything has to look the same. And that the whole text blob should be visible at once. But a release overview (Two current branches are not that much) would be fine. > I have tried to counter that, but I > will gladly accept any proposals to add all the (non-EOL) releases to > some form of matrix on the front page. I'm just not sure how to tackle > it yet. 2.0 is EOL. So it's basically two boxes or something. > > > And yes, as an admin I may have only a text browser available if I want > > to check the current security state of a software *on my server*. Shit > > happens. > > Good thing this proposal works perfectly well with Lynx then. I don't use lynx ;) > > > Anyway, here are some more comments based on a *quick* review. I find > > the 72h timebox way too short for such a change, by the way, especially > > over a weekend. > > It's not _over a weekend_, and I'm not trying to sneak in a change this > big. If I wanted that, I would've JFDI'ed it and taken the flak. But I > also don't want yet another 17(!) years of saying "hmm we should do > something" and then not doing anything because we're too busy staring at > our own navels. Sorry for that, I messed up the days (it was shortly after midnight here). > I asked that anyone object if they found something wrong > with a 72h lazy consensus, and you have objected, and I will naturally > take that into account. Fine. I think, it's wrong. > We have a web site that screams "we don't care anymore!", and that makes > me an angry pony. And sometimes angry ponies use lazy consensus because > it seems like we are only a handful of people who really care enough. I > am glad that you care, that makes another one of us. > > > (also a screenshot: <http://people.apache.org/~nd/shot.png>) > > That's a matter of tweaking the CSS, although I hadn't imagined anyone > visiting with less than 720p these days, so I hadn't tried what would > happen if someone did. I will correct the styles to also work with very > narrow screens. Huh. The browser was 1016 pixels wide. So is the screenshot... How is that narrow and less than 720p? > > > - Don't fix the fonts to px size. > > - The maint font (Libertine) is badly readable. > > I disagree, but we can probably find a font more suitable (or settle for > Serif if all else fails) So, you find it well-readable? Try reading the text in the screenshot. > > Also, the legal stuff should be reachable without Javascript anyway. > > As stated earlier, I find that to be a very...vague argument. You might want to have a look at laws of certain countries (Germany is an example). Although they don't apply directly, mirroring might be an issue. > Other than > actively choosing to disable JavaScript while retaining CSS styles, you > won't find yourself in a situation where you can't use the navigation > properly. Which is the typical case (using noscript), though. It's easily possible to build it working that way. If bootstrap can't do that, we have to give it a boot. (no pun intended) > > > - Once I activated JS, I immediatetly found the carousel autoscrolling > > annoying (the animation too, because it steals my time, but YMMV). > > That can be adjusted/disabled. I have changed it to 15 seconds per > frame, up from 10 sec/frame. I'm interested in hearing what others think > of this. Yes, my answer was to all. I've just stated my thinkings here. > > > - A final version should remove external dependencies and all inline > > style attributes. Also, unscoped style blocks within the body are > > invalid HTML. > > Yes, I have that on my To-do list. I was initially more interested in > comments on the overall look and feel, and not so much whether it's > valid HTML - those things can always be fixed, and any modern browser > will work with it in any case. Such an early state should not go to the CMS then. > > > - Btw: There are many !important styles. Why is that? > > It's an easy way to override other style settings one disagrees with in > Bootstrap. So simple cascading doesn't work with bootstrap? So, to sum up, I like it, that you take care of our site. If you check it into the repository somewhere, I'm willing to help. nd
