David Abrahams wrote:
Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Hi,
I still don't understand why there needs to be a difference
between the L&F of the "standalone" documentation and the "web"
based documentation. Is there a rationale?
Good question. I really liked what I saw in the Boost doc pages
(e.g. Python's) that had been transformed by Rene's work.
If we are going for uniformity, then we should definitely strive
for a common L&F for both the "standalone" and "web" docs. I'd
say there are lots of good designs found in Rene's rendition but
it's too big a departure from the BoostBook L&F that we have
worked hard on to reach it's current form.
I disagree, though I might be convinced otherwise.
Disagree on what? Common L&F? That it's too big a departure from
the BoostBook L&F?
I think Rene's
looks more professional and accessible.
IMO, yes it is more refined, to say the least.
Sure, it's not perfect, but it's the result of endless discussion on
this list and the boost list as well. While I welcome improvement
tweaks here and there, I'd be sad if we'll just throw away the work
done so far.
I'm hoping we'll reach an agreement somewhere around the bend.
Perhaps the current BoostBook scheme can incorporate some of the
good aspects of Rene's design, subject to deliberation and
discussion, of course.
In that case, there's your reason for a difference.
Sorry, I don't quite understand. What's the reason for a
difference?
And I guess I'll
be keeping my docs out of BoostBook until the formatting looks
as good to me as what we get on the site. The incentive to change
just isn't there.
I could have said the same thing with the Spirit docs
as they were. But where does that leave us? I bit the bullet
and chose to follow whatever comes out of discussion over
L&F at the time it was being deliberated. What has been done
was a fair amount of discussion, tweak, discussion, tweak
to move us closer to something that was supposedly agreeable
to most. I certainly didn't like many of what has come out
of the consensus, but it was consensus none the less. Were
all those in vain? If so, then there's really no point in
continuing this discussion. Maybe we should just let it be
and let each author choose his own L&F just as, say, W3C
does (there's no commom L&F, each document has its own style).
But I'd argue that this should be done on a per aspect basis;
otherwise we get overwhelmed. I'll try to collect my thoughts and
initiate a per-aspect discussion. I'll be constructive. I'll focus
on the good aspects that I wish to be incorporated into the current
BoostBook CSS.
The top section:
I think we are all in agreement here. It's a big departure from
the old. While I prefer color (e.g. Spirit's new top section
http://spirit.sf.net/), the backdrop is not bad. The tabbed like
links (Welcome, Intro, etc.) is also really nice.
I agree that having a little color is a really nice thing. And
Spirit's banner is beautiful.
Color is good! Otherwise, we'll still be viewing monochrome
TVs and monitors ;)
Font Sizes:
I prefer Rene's choice of font sizes over those we have in the
BoostBook scheme. I think the current ones we have are too big.
They work well for the headings, paragraphs and the code. I think
Rene's choice is just perfect for my taste.
Agreed.
Let me also add that I also prefer Rene's line-spacing.
Ok, I hope that's a good set of request for change. There are
certainly things I do not like (e.g. underlined links,
Look at the Table of Contents: http://tinyurl.com/85erh
How awfully distracting (too busy). Compare:
http://tinyurl.com/b98fs
It gets worse when we go to the code blocks with links.
I'm still trying to decide which of those link styles I think is more
distracting. I think there are no really *good* solutions for link
styles. They're all compromises.
choice (or lack) of color,
That's a cultural thing to some extent. The Brazilian guys who work
as painters up here in New England sometimes ruffle feathers when
there's a miscommunication about color choices. It always comes out
way too bright for the local taste.
I know. But certainly, that does that not mean that going for
the least common denominator (monochrome B&W) is better.
etc.) but as I said, I wish to be constructive and start with
what I find agreeable. The idea is to discuss these aspects for
incorporation back to BoostBook's CSS. There may be more later.
Then, we'll deal with them as they come.
I think we should have that discussion regardless.
Cheers,
--
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net
-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Do you grep through log files
for problems? Stop! Download the new AJAX search engine that makes
searching your log files as easy as surfing the web. DOWNLOAD SPLUNK!
http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=103432&bid=230486&dat=121642
_______________________________________________
Boost-docs mailing list
[email protected]
Unsubscribe and other administrative requests:
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/boost-docs
