Joshua Slive <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 1. There was one main reason I stopped developing the "wacky" style: > complexity. If felt it was over-complex both visually and particularly > the css and html code. The css code had the advantage that it was > externally developed and maintained at style.tigris.org, but I still > didn't like using something that seemed difficult to maintain.
Oh, I didn't know that. My comment was solely on look and feel, so I completely agree with your suggestion #2 below. > 2. Let's try to determine exactly what about the original style people > like better. Perhaps we can combine the two in a way that will work. > Some suggestions: > b) Side-menu listing important stuff seperate from text rather than > having the menu integrated from the text. I like this, but I'm not sure > how much it is about the "cool" factor. It also leads to the obvious > disadvantage of having to put the whole darn page in a table, which is > annoying but very common for modern sites. As Michael pointed out, it can be done with only css. If implementing it doesn't end up in complex html and css, I'd like to see it done. Module docs looks much better if directives is listed on side-menu. > c) Smaller font. As I mentioned in the original discussion, smaller > fonts tend to look more modern and professional, since almost all major > websites now use a less-than-default font size. Of course, it is silly > to contradict what the user set as their default font, but since almost > all sites do it, <small> can almost be considered the default. I don't have strong opinion about this. Either one is fine with me. -- Yoshiki Hayashi --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
