HTML+CSS proposal (was: wacky docs look - take two)
* Joshua Slive wrote: - Probably doesn't require as much complex CSS. generally yes. Unfortunately the real world (aka NN + IE) refuses to accept a simple CSS... ;-) I have no personal investment (other than a couple hours play-time) in my (ie the tigris) style proposal. André, is it possible to provide an html/css mockup for this? The final product would need to be xslt, but I can make that fairly quickly from a mockup. I made a HTML example of env.html. It's valid XHTML strict and CSS. I've added some comments to point out the problems and workarounds. Also tried to add some semantics to the pure HTML code and removed some bad [tm] stuff. we played around a little bit with the colors, thus there are some choices now: http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/env.html http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/env-blue.html http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/env-aqua.html (all in all I'd prefer the env.html version) If you have a browser that can handle alternate style sheets (like mozilla), there are some simple alternatives - try it out :) all files together: http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/env.tar.gz (unix \n) http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/env.zip(win \n) It works with NN4 (Win), IE5 6, Opera 5 6(Win), Mozilla (1.0 1.1 beta tested), Lynx (DOS). (NN4 probably reaches his limits, but it works ;-) Comments and tests on Mac/Unix/other browsers are welcome. nd -- Real programmers confuse Christmas and Halloween because DEC 25 = OCT 31. -- Unknown (found in ssl_engine_mutex.c) - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: HTML+CSS proposal (was: wacky docs look - take two)
Hi André ! It works with NN4 (Win), IE5 6, Opera 5 6(Win), Mozilla (1.0 1.1 beta tested), Lynx (DOS). (NN4 probably reaches his limits, but it works ;-) Comments and tests on Mac/Unix/other browsers are welcome. Internet Explorer 5.0 / 5.14 MAC has some problems with your pages. For example the whole content is squeezed to the left border. Also the Related-Modules-tables are overlapping the corresponding headers. I didn't have the time to look in the source-code in detail, but I could prepare some screenshots if needed. Erik BTW: NN 4.79 shows some question marks in front of enumerations (ulli). NN 6.0 / 7.0 Mac is perfectly okay. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wacky docs look - take two
* Joshua Slive wrote: Here's another draft of the wacky new doc style. I'm a little bit uncomfortable with this late reply, but there's too less spare time here at the moment :/. However, here's the suggestion, anncounced several weeks ago. If it's of some interest, I'll take the time and convert (one of) the pictures below to full HTML documents. The designer doesn't speak English very well, so you'll find a translated summary of his comments below. we've tried to combine your suggestion with our first ideas. Currently there are just only pics made by photoshop. http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/entw2_3.gif http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/entw2_5.gif -- * Generally this outline(s) are more focussed on the content, so structure and navigation elements go more discrete * site navigation is (as now) top positioned, so there's more space for the content. The sub-structure as suggested seems to be oversized. The reader will mostly read (at least) a whole paragraph, so the links to /every/ sub sub section will less useful and too complex. * the link symbols (arrows) are meant as navigation elements only. They are not intened for links in normal text * One section (including subsections) is the part, that generally should be overviewed by the reader. For this purpose the border in entw2_3 was added. Probably it's a bit oversized. The headings of the subsections should not be so obvious. They are distractive to the reader. For example, if you look at entw2_3 the section heading background is colored blue-gray, any subsection headings then may only be bordered (like in entw2_5 or so) * colors: the colors are derived from the existent and they are mainly intended to reduce the contrast. text color: blue1 (like background in existent) background heading: blue-gray1 (like text, but more gray) - the text is more colored than the headings thus they don't draw off the attention so much background table heading: blue-gray2 (more bright as blue-gray1) links: blue2 (more a cyan) they shall be recognized clearly, but not become flashy visited links: currently yellow-gray they are just a problem, because they have to be kept in context, have to be less strong as normal links and nevertheless have to be recognized in normal text. Thus it's now this no-color and probably subject to change * the gifs are only outlines (design suggested and commented by Gernot Winkler) - nd -- die (eval q-qq:Just Another Perl Hacker :-) # André Malo, http://www.perlig.de/ # - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wacky docs look - take two
Hi Andy, we've tried to combine your suggestion with our first ideas. Currently there are just only pics made by photoshop. http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/entw2_3.gif http://test.perlig.de/apdoc/entw2_5.gif I think the navigation icons slightly improve the usability, so I would be +1 for them. The overall looks is brighter, not so many large dark areas around there. I like this. Also, the feather quill works much better on the white background, while the rest of the feather still works on the darker background. So this combination of a dark background section and a feather on top of if seems a good solution to me. I would suggest to increase the contrast in the related modules / related directives field where foreground and background color are too close to each other. Regards, Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wacky docs look - take two
So it would look better if you replace td/td by tdnbsp;/td if you want to make the tables look less awkward for old browsers. +1 on this... Michael, are you able to configure your mail reader to suppress the 'Antwort:'-fields and use 'Re:' in your subject lines? The subjects are starting to get a little crowded: 'RE: Antwort: RE: Re: cvs commit: ...' -erik - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wacky docs look - take two
Here's another draft of the wacky new doc style. I think it is looking relatively polished now, and I've included transformations so you can try it out with non-xml browsers. See http://cvs.apache.org/~slive/manual/ The main page hasn't changed, but most of the xml generated files have, including: http://cvs.apache.org/~slive/manual/configuring.html http://cvs.apache.org/~slive/manual/logs.html http://cvs.apache.org/~slive/manual/install.html and all the modules linked from http://cvs.apache.org/~slive/manual/mod/ Just as a reminder, this is using css directly stolen from http://style.tigris.org/. Personally, I'm not going to be making a bunch of changes to their style sheet. I've layered a few special things for us in another stylesheet. It does make use of divs to a large degree, but there are certain things (like example) that could probably make better use of css still. So here is what I'd like to hear: - Is this the right overall direction? - Is it too flashy/complicated? - Does it work in everybody's various browsers? (It is supposed to work at least back to Netscape 4, but I haven't tested it.) If people like it, what the process be for adopting it? Should we go ahead and do it now, and fix up any problems later. Or should we wait and fix things now. Or possibly, should we wait until the rest of the manual is converted to xml? Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: wacky docs look - take two
So here is what I'd like to hear: - Is this the right overall direction? IMHO: yes - Is it too flashy/complicated? The only disadvantage I noticed is that it's useless on 640/480. But I don't think that should be show stopper. - Does it work in everybody's various browsers? (It is supposed to work at least back to Netscape 4, but I haven't tested it.) What do we want to support? If people like it, what the process be for adopting it? Should we go ahead and do it now, and fix up any problems later. Or should we wait and fix things now. Or possibly, should we wait until the rest of the manual is converted to xml? I would wait for all the docs to be in XML, since converting twice is not a good idea. However, it might be usefull for people to be able to contribute to the development. Maybe it is helpfull to post an archive with all the CSS/XSL stuff in it so that people can experiment with it. Vincent de Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wacky docs look - take two
Vincent de Lau wrote: - Is it too flashy/complicated? The only disadvantage I noticed is that it's useless on 640/480. But I don't think that should be show stopper. Hmmm... I'm not sure what you mean here. The only problem I see with using it on very narrow displays is the use of big pre blocks. Those will never work inside layout tables, and they can be removed fairly easily. For pages that don't have those, I have no problems going well below 600 pixels wide. - Does it work in everybody's various browsers? (It is supposed to work at least back to Netscape 4, but I haven't tested it.) What do we want to support? It should be usable on pretty much anything. That is, you should be able to read and navigate the pages on any modern-era browser (including, say, lynx). It should look nice on standards-conforming browsers. I would wait for all the docs to be in XML, since converting twice is not a good idea. Again, I'm not sure what you mean here. The XML is not changing at all. The only thing that is changing is the transformation to html. The only problem I see with going ahead before everything has been converted to xml is that the docs will look a little strange for a while: half the docs will be in the old design and half in the new. The main advantage I see to that is that it gives us a good incentive to get everything converted. Thanks for your feeback. Joshua. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wacky docs look - take two
On Saturday 10 August 2002 05.03, Joshua Slive wrote: - Is this the right overall direction? +1! - Is it too flashy/complicated? I don't find it too flashy. The one thing I would change, is to put the menu box on the right on the left side instead. I think that would work better for people people who haven't got that high resolution. Then they won't have to scroll to see the main information. Otherwise, I have only small, cosmetic things to complain about: My biggest gripe is that the boxes for examples/warnings/etc always ought to be the same width (preferably they should use the same width as the ordinary text.) I think the header part could be smaller on sub pages. Why waste valuable screen space on something that you know anyhow :-) The Maintained by... footer should be aligned with the main information text box. If one doesn't move the menu box, then the maintain message ought to be right aligned. - Does it work in everybody's various browsers? (It is supposed to work at least back to Netscape 4, but I haven't tested it.) I've tried it in Konqeuror, Links, Lynx, and Galeon. It seems to work in them all. If people like it, what the process be for adopting it? Should we go ahead and do it now, and fix up any problems later. I'd say; go for it now. Or at least very soon. You might want to take a week or two to gather input, before applying it for real. -- .-. | Patrik Grip-Jansson | | Ringen 4B |.. | 78444 Borlänge .--'' http://gnulix.com/ `-. | Sweden | All views and opinions are my own, | `--| PH:+46(0)24382823 PW:+46(0)707354360 | `--' - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
