On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 7:31 PM, Kasim Ahmic <kasim.ah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well here's what I managed to get done today:
> It's basically just a content swap. It still needs to be entirely
> restyled. Also, I found something out. If I change one of the classes, the
> body becomes fluid. The problem with that is the images (the browser icons
> on the page) and the text end up too far apart on the body.
> This is the exact reason why I chose to go for a static design. The mockup
> that Mike made doesn't exactly work with a fluid design unfortunately.
> Unless we come up with something different, I'm afraid we'll be stuck with
> a static design.
Also to pipe in my 2 cents. I checked the site in a mobile browser. I
understand it's completely new and totally alpha code. That being said: I
don't think it's useful for the Download link to show up in the mobile
interface. Something to think about. I'm not sure how I'd handle that
easily be parsed on the server side but it sounds like static flat files
generated is favored over server side execution for serving html.
I really like Elle's comments on accessibility. Just some thoughts and
gimp-user-list mailing list