David Abrahams wrote:
Joel de Guzman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Ok... well, I took a few days off the topic; thinking that maybe
I might have a better understanding and change of heart after
a while. Now, after thinking about it some more, I think my
greatest apprehension stems from the feeling that Rene's L&F
is being forced unto me. It gives me the same feeling when I
was in school (an Italian, all boys, school) where we all had to
wear the same uniform, same haircut, same everything. I think
the lack of color (you can have any color as long as it's black)
also contributed to this feeling, especially when Reece mentioned
Schindler's list. It evokes in me the same feeling of Nazi style
control and the holocaust or the borg or a dark penal colony
in a planet somewhere in the 3050AD.
I think that's a bit too melodramatic ;-)
Yeah, it is a little bit grim. You seem to have some Spirit person
who comes up with beautiful banners. Can you get something for Boost
that's as pretty, but also very professional?
I'm willing to take contributions... But if people think it's too drab I
can certainly accommodate with my own work. I don't think I said
anywhere that I wasn't willing to change the look (I did say I wasn't
willing to make an inconsistent design). And more importantly, most of
the work I've done for the website has nothing to do with the look and
is more so that we can have the flexibility to change the look with
considerably more ease than now.
The docs are works of various authors. They should have control over
the L&F. I am 100% for uniformity, but it should not be *forced*
uniformity. It should be something that we agree on.
Agreed.
Yes. But, unless I missed something, I haven't seen suggestions as to
what people want changed other than the links. I can think of things I
might change, like using blueish text titles like the current design.
And I think I just found a very nicer header source image than the
current acoustic tile one. Like I've mentioned to Joel in the past, I'm
much in favor of color, but there's a limit that we'll run into if we
want to keep the clean professional look. And keeping in mind that the
logo is not going to change.
That said, in the spirit of cooperation and team work,
I'll withdraw my current objections and accept Rene's work
and recommend that the current QuickBook L&F be modified to
come closer to Rene's.
I think closer would probably be an improvement.
Indeed, Rene's current version looks very professional. Is it the
best? No, it is not. To be honest, I prefer the wikipedia style.
What do you like about it? I know it's a hard question. But it's
important people think about this because I have to think about such
things when doing the design. It's not about copying others work.
I
remember Daniel Wallin showed me something like it and I liked it a
lot. However, given that eveyone now seems to be gravitating towards
Rene's, and considering the amount of time spent on it, I'd give it
my approval (FWIW).
At it's current state, and conceding details, I have only one
strong objection left: the links. Please retain the current
QuickBook link style. It's the same as the wikipedia style.
Last time I tried something like that, a colored text link style, there
where objections about reduced accessibility for visually impaired
audience. Another objection, which I've mentioned in the past, is that
on link heavy text, frequent in some Boost pages, the links cause
considerable reading distraction. Of course I'm not sure the new style
is less distracting as the underline color is more intense now. I still
prefer the lighter, and much less distracting, link style in the current
home page. But there where objections about that also.
It works,
Most link styles "work".
it is less distracting
Less distracting to you. This is the big problem with link styles. It's
a personal perception problem. For some it's less distracting to look at
to have text colored links. For others that makes the text harder to read.
and it is pleasing to see,
Again, to you. How is it pleasing? What is it you find pleasing?
and, you don't need to have it differently for the table of
contents, code and general links in the content.
One doesn't have to have it be different in any design. But it might
look better if it is different.
Since I don't feel very comfortable with any of the link styles when I
look at them closely, I am inclined toward the wikipedia style as
being "less evil" than an invented product just on the basis of
familiarity.
You do realize they are all "invented"? Right?
PS. If I'm somehow mixing the references web site, boostbook, quickbook,
etc. it's because it's not clear to me which of all the various parts we
are talking about :-(
--
-- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything
-- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com
-- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com
-- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
-------------------------------------------------------
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
