On Friday, 8 January 2016 at 22:32:59 UTC, anonymous wrote:
My implementation of the redesign is pretty much complete.
Check it out: http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/
This is an implementation of a design done by one Ivan Smirnov,
brought forward by Jacob Carlborg [1].
Very nice work. Thank you for doing this.
The dark forum widgets on the home page are in iframes. Their
styling will need to be updated at the source, which is
forum.dlang.org.
Once this is merged, would you be OK with working together on
updating the forum to the new design?
2) Reviewing the code
https://github.com/aG0aep6G/dlang.org/commits/Ivan-Smirnov's-redesign
This is just one giant commit (the others are independent minor
fixes). GitHub refuses to show the diff for the style.css file,
because it's too big. Is this acceptable, or do I need to split
it up somehow? If I need to split it up, any advice on how to
do that?
I think this is fine as it is.
3) New Pages
Aside from the overall style changes and menu reorganization, I
also added overview pages for the articles and for the tools:
http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/articles.html
http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/tools.html
They feature new text that should be proofread.
Perhaps also link to (or even replace with) the wiki pages:
http://wiki.dlang.org/Articles
http://wiki.dlang.org/Development_tools
BTW, I've been meaning to make a MediaWiki skin based on the
dlang.org design for a while.
4) Fonts
Vladimir Panteleev has spoken out against web fonts [2]. His
argument is that they can look fine on one system but bad on
another. Indeed the recently changed code font on dlang.org
looks pretty bad for me while the default 'monospace' looks
just fine, which is why I reverted that in the redesign.
The redesign uses a web font for its main font, though: Roboto
Slab. It looks good for me, but I'm not able to test it on a
large variety of device/OS/browser combinations. Maybe it's
fine, or maybe we should stay away from web fonts
categorically. I don't really have an opinion on this.
It looks good here (Firefox/Linux), and I agree that it fits the
design nicely. I'll agree with Andrei, let's use it unless we run
into some issues.
5) Justified Text
Andrei loves it, everybody else hates it. I killed it as the
mockup didn't have it. Is that ok, or is justified text a must?
IIRC the main point of contention was hyphenation (IMO hyphenated
text is unusual and harder to read on the web). I agree that if
hyphenation is a must, then justified text can be an improvement,
but generally it seems to be a highly situational question.
6) Red For Clickables Only?
Currently, the site uses red almost exclusively for clickable
stuff. But it's also used as a highlight color for
non-clickable things. For example in phobos signatures:
http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/phobos/object.html#.Object
The left borders of the signature boxes are red, and the
documented symbol is highlighted with red.
Red does not signal clickability here. I don't like that and
I'd prefer to go with another color for generic highlighting,
reserving red for clickable stuff.
It's important to have some way to distinguish links from
non-links, e.g. by underlining links (and only links).
Unfortunately, in some places underlining all links doesn't work
well, e.g. the "Jump to" indices in Phobos docs. I guess it's
something that warrants some experimentation.
Perhaps just use bold without a color change for symbol
highlighting? The red borders look fine to me, I don't think they
present any ambiguity.
7) The Logo
As requested by Andrei, this does not feature a logo change for
now. I'm going to make a pull request for the slicker logo
variant [3] when this is through.
Ironically, the current "official" logo is in the same legal
position as the current design - we never got a confirmation from
its author whether and how we can use it.
