"Andrei Alexandrescu" <seewebsiteforem...@erdani.org> wrote in message news:j9ps5n$30nq$1...@digitalmars.com... > Walter and I have been working on the website for a while. We want to > crystallize a clear message of what the D programming language is. > > Please take a look at http://d-programming-language.org/new/. The work is > content-only (no significant changes in style, though collapsible examples > and twitter news are a new style element). > > Feedback is welcome. >
Haven't had a chance to read through it yet, but initial observations: Con: Examples are never visible without JS. There is *no* good technical or stylistic reason for that. Like I was just telling someone on D.announce, if you need something collapsible, the way you do it is by leaving it uncollapsed in the HTML/CSS. Then, if you really want JS users to see it collapsed by default, you collapse it *via JS* upon page load. Or just make use of the noscript tag. There is *never* any reason to do it any differently than that. Con: I don't think it's a good stylistic choice to have *no* sample code at all on the main homepage without clicking. Put a good short snippet right there for everyone to always see. Doesn't have to be anything fancy or all-encompassing. You can look through other langauge's sites for inspiration - it's quickly becoming standard practice for languages to have a short example on their website's homepage. It's often not much more than a hello world, just to get a little taste of the language. Con: The little icons after external links are ugly and unnecessary. First of all, this isn't a wiki. More importantly, if anyone actually cares what links go to a different site, they can already tell that by hovering. If you're doing it out of worry that people will think they're still on the same site, well, that's *very* 1990's, and it was merely absurd paranoia even back then. It's not much better than those god-awful sites that have those rediculous and patronizing "you are now leaving our site" screens. Con: While I don't have any objection to there *being* Kindle versions of the docs, I strongly feel it doesn't deserve a place in the default sidebar. Call it a matter of "pulling it's own weight". It's just not nearly significant enough, and it's easy enough (and perfectly sufficient) to have a link to the kindle version of the Book/Reference *on* the main page for the Book/Reference. Besides, we're not an Amazon advertisement here. Plus: I don't see this new twitface element people are talking about. Yes, I realize *some* people like such sites, but that's no excuse for cramming it down *everyone's* face. Again, we're not here to be twitface's free advertising. So I like that whatever this new thing is isn't showing up.
