Re: New LilyPond website

On 12/3/2016 4:42 AM, Federico Bruni wrote: > John, you resisted more than I would have expected. I wonder if we'll > ever see "the best person for _this_ job". And, I have been admiring John's patience and flexibility. He faced more resistance than I would have expected. Work on the website

Re: New LilyPond website

Am 3. Dezember 2016 11:42:35 MEZ, schrieb Federico Bruni : >Il giorno gio 1 dic 2016 alle 1:48, John Roper > >ha scritto: >> Why specifically do we *need* to use textinfo? If I could make a new >> system that would auto generate the docs that works

Re: New LilyPond website

Il giorno gio 1 dic 2016 alle 1:48, John Roper ha scritto: Why specifically do we *need* to use textinfo? If I could make a new system that would auto generate the docs that works with the current system would you use it? Good question, if limited to the website (don't

Re: New LilyPond website

I understand. My apologies for being slow to get going; I only re-joined LilyPond on Wednesday, in part because I suspected how this was going to play out. I plan to improve the process for new contributors, but it will likely be 4-6 months before we have the technical and social capability in

Re: New LilyPond website

This has turned into quite a bigger problem than I expected. I understand your reasons, but as a more modernistic designer and developer, I don't agree with most of your descisions no offense or problem. I just don't think I am the best person for the job. On Dec 2, 2016 2:19 PM, "Graham

Re: New LilyPond website

Hi John, Thanks for your interest in helping LilyPond! I wonder if you might be interested in having a dedicated mentor to help you navigate our development process. We are more than 20 years old, and our process is aimed at allowing us to keep things rolling as smoothly as possible. I've

Re: New LilyPond website

Le 02/12/2016 à 02:10, Paul a écrit : Hi Carl, On 12/01/2016 12:44 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: One thing that is note mentioned in your quote is that texinfo separates semantics from appearance. It is this precise separation that allows one to make big but consistent changes in the appearance of

Re: New LilyPond website

On 12/01/2016 02:40 PM, John Roper wrote: My css file is a proposed inclusion into the website. Hi John, I tried your CSS file (just using Firefox developer tools) and made a couple of screenshots (uploaded to that same directory mentioned earlier in this thread), but the "Cabin" font is

Re: New LilyPond website

On 12/1/16 6:10 PM, "Paul" wrote: >Hi Carl, > >On 12/01/2016 12:44 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: >> One thing that is note mentioned in your quote is that texinfo separates >> semantics from appearance. It is this precise separation that allows >>one >> to make big but

Re: New LilyPond website

Hi Carl, On 12/01/2016 12:44 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: One thing that is note mentioned in your quote is that texinfo separates semantics from appearance. It is this precise separation that allows one to make big but consistent changes in the appearance of the website with changes in the CSS.

Re: New LilyPond website

> My css file is a proposed inclusion into the website. John, may I kindly asked you to start trimming your responses to this list? You always top post, write a line or two then followed by a large amount of text, most of which has little to do with what you just wrote. For illustration

Re: New LilyPond website

My css file is a proposed inclusion into the website. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: > > > On 11/30/16 6:53 PM, "Paul" wrote: > >>On 11/30/2016 08:01 PM, John Roper wrote: >> >>> Why is the website auto generated? What content is

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/16 6:53 PM, "Paul" wrote: >On 11/30/2016 08:01 PM, John Roper wrote: > >> Why is the website auto generated? What content is auto generated or >> is it just setup that way so that it is always built to the latest >> version for releases? By having the website

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/16 7:35 PM, "John Roper" wrote: >Ok, I tested, and I made some more fixes. John, Thanks for doing this! It would probably work better to have the proposed patches be posted to a new thread on the lilypond-devel list. That's where things happen to change

Re: New LilyPond website

I saw that. The text does not scale as it should so I need to fix that. It wasn't very high on my priority list. On Dec 1, 2016 6:19 AM, "Urs Liska" wrote: > > > Am 01.12.2016 um 12:14 schrieb John Roper: > >> So, in my experience as a professional (web) designer, I’d go

Re: New LilyPond website

Am 01.12.2016 um 12:14 schrieb John Roper: >> So, in my experience as a professional (web) designer, I’d go for something >> that works without JS, but also/better with. (Bootstrap is one candidate.) > My new design uses bootstrap 4 entirely with a little bit of css to > adjust fonts, colors

Re: New LilyPond website

>So, in my experience as a professional (web) designer, I’d go for something >that works without JS, but also/better with. (Bootstrap is one candidate.) My new design uses bootstrap 4 entirely with a little bit of css to adjust fonts, colors and create the footer. On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 3:12

Re: New LilyPond website

> Regarding the font: While I find it acceptable for most of the text, > I’d prefer something different for titles, esp. the main title. You have to be more specific. I like the current font look of http://jmroper.com/lilypond because it is very uniform, not distracting from the contents.

Re: New LilyPond website

Am 2016-11-30 um 22:51 schrieb John Roper : > OK, I removed the JavaScript drop down menu and will do it another > way. I have also updated the letter spacing on the text so it matches > what we had previously. I didn’t look at it (yet), but thanks for your efforts! I

Re: New LilyPond website

Il giorno mer 30 nov 2016 alle 20:13, Noeck ha scritto: I wanted to do that, but I got so much dislike from the community members about the design, I redid it in a way that would be more pleasing to them. That's a pity. My summary of the opinions here is different:

Re: New LilyPond website

And another fix for links. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:35 PM, John Roper wrote: > Ok, I tested, and I made some more fixes. > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:18 PM, John Roper wrote: >> Ok, here are my updates on the lilypond-website.css. >> >> On Wed,

Re: New LilyPond website

Ok, I tested, and I made some more fixes. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:18 PM, John Roper wrote: > Ok, here are my updates on the lilypond-website.css. > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Paul wrote: >> On 11/30/2016 08:01 PM, John Roper wrote: >> >>>

Re: New LilyPond website

Ok, here are my updates on the lilypond-website.css. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:53 PM, Paul wrote: > On 11/30/2016 08:01 PM, John Roper wrote: > >> Why is the website auto generated? What content is auto generated or >> is it just setup that way so that it is always built to

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 08:01 PM, John Roper wrote: Why is the website auto generated? What content is auto generated or is it just setup that way so that it is always built to the latest version for releases? Others can probably give better answers, as this is kind of second hand based on past

Re: New LilyPond website

Ok. will do. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:42 PM, Graham Percival wrote: > The same information that's on the website is also produced in pdf > and info (a GNU/Linux documentation system). > > I *strongly* encourage you to modify the existing lilypond.css file > and use the

Re: New LilyPond website

The same information that's on the website is also produced in pdf and info (a GNU/Linux documentation system). I *strongly* encourage you to modify the existing lilypond.css file and use the current HTML files, rather than trying to recreate the texinfo from scratch. Even if you want to

Re: New LilyPond website

Why is the website auto generated? What content is auto generated or is it just setup that way so that it is always built to the latest version for releases? On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:52 PM, Paul wrote: > On 11/30/2016 04:51 PM, John Roper wrote: > >> OK, I removed the

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 04:51 PM, John Roper wrote: OK, I removed the JavaScript drop down menu and will do it another way. I have also updated the letter spacing on the text so it matches what we had previously. Ok, just trying to save you some work since javascript dependencies are a no-go for some

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 07:21 PM, John Roper wrote: So, does texinfo create all the markup and you add the styling, or do you add some of the markup? If so, where is it? The HTML files are generated from texinfo source files. The CSS files are just CSS files which are edited directly. In the

Re: New LilyPond website

Why specifically do we *need* to use textinfo? If I could make a new system that would auto generate the docs that works with the current system would you use it? On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:23 PM, John Roper wrote: > What I had to do for the new design was create entirely

Re: New LilyPond website

What I had to do for the new design was create entirely new markup from scratch. If it is not possible to use that, we have no new design. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:21 PM, John Roper wrote: > So, does texinfo create all the markup and you add the styling, or do > you add

Re: New LilyPond website

So, does texinfo create all the markup and you add the styling, or do you add some of the markup? If so, where is it? On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:07 PM, John Roper wrote: > https://github.com/johnroper100/LilyPond-Web-Redesign > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:55 PM, John Roper

Re: New LilyPond website

https://github.com/johnroper100/LilyPond-Web-Redesign On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:55 PM, John Roper wrote: > I am going to put the code in a GitHub repo for now so that I can keep track > of it. > > > On Nov 30, 2016 6:53 PM, "John Roper" wrote: >>

Re: New LilyPond website

I am going to put the code in a GitHub repo for now so that I can keep track of it. On Nov 30, 2016 6:53 PM, "John Roper" wrote: > I am prepared to take my design and start to convert it over to the text > info generator (at least on the home page). > > On Nov 30, 2016

Re: New LilyPond website

I am prepared to take my design and start to convert it over to the text info generator (at least on the home page). On Nov 30, 2016 6:29 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote: > > > On 11/30/16 2:58 PM, "Noeck" wrote: > > > > >I was a bit disappointed that the

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/16 2:58 PM, "Noeck" wrote: > >I was a bit disappointed that the suggestions have narrowed down so >quickly to something so close to the old layout. But perhaps the chances >are better to get somewhere from there than to have ~10 to quickly ~50 >completely

Re: New LilyPond website

>Thanks for working on this, John. No problem! On Nov 30, 2016 6:07 PM, "Carl Sorensen" wrote: > Thanks, Paul. > > My favorite of these is the current (second) sans-serif font. I didn't > think I would like it better than the current web page, but I do. > > Thanks for

Re: New LilyPond website

Thanks, Paul. My favorite of these is the current (second) sans-serif font. I didn't think I would like it better than the current web page, but I do. Thanks for working on this, John. Carl On 11/30/16 2:16 PM, "Paul" wrote: >On 11/30/2016 03:36 PM, Carl Sorensen

Re: New LilyPond website

"Looking good! One of my pet peeves is when some place with lots of important download and reference resources redesigns their site to such an extent that it becomes hard to find things. I don't see that happening here." Thanks! On Nov 30, 2016 5:32 PM, "Karlin High" wrote:

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 4:06 PM, John Roper wrote: >> Are you aware of Steve Gibson's Pure-CSS Menu System? > I am but I'd rather not use it. Sure, no problem. > I am working on the download page. Just click on the download link in > the menubar to see how it looks. Looking good! One of my pet peeves is

Re: New LilyPond website

Dear Werner, >>> I don't understand. Where is the point in recreating somthing >>> close to the old look? I thought the whole idea was to create >>> something new? Am 30.11.2016 um 20:43 schrieb Werner LEMBERG: > He provides fine-tuning, e.g., responsive design suitable to different > screen

Re: New LilyPond website

I doubt that John doesn't know this. But still one more version - I don't know if it is helpful, but it looks and works fine: http://medialoot.com/blog/how-to-create-a-responsive-navigation-menu-using-only-css/ http://medialoot.com/preview/css-only-navigation-menu/index.html Cheers, Joram

Re: New LilyPond website

>Are you aware of Steve Gibson's Pure-CSS Menu System? I am but I'd rather not use it. I am working on the download page. Just click on the download link in the menubar to see how it looks. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:59 PM, Karlin High wrote: > On 11/30/2016 3:51 PM, John

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 3:51 PM, John Roper wrote: > OK, I removed the JavaScript drop down menu and will do it another > way. Are you aware of Steve Gibson's Pure-CSS Menu System? https://www.grc.com/menudemo.htm https://www.grc.com/mainmenu.css Freely available, public domain. I've read that CSS

Re: New LilyPond website

Dear Karlin, Am 30.11.2016 um 21:45 schrieb Karlin High: > Without some "Director of Marketing" person to decree that *THIS* New > Design Shall Be Accepted, what other result could there be? Yes, you are probably right. And I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, in particular the

Re: New LilyPond website

"nonsensical" ... "all-or-nothing approach" That's a style I deeply dislike. No more comments. ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: New LilyPond website

OK, I removed the JavaScript drop down menu and will do it another way. I have also updated the letter spacing on the text so it matches what we had previously. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 4:25 PM, Paul wrote: > On 11/30/2016 04:16 PM, Paul wrote: > >> I see the "Introduction"

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 04:16 PM, Paul wrote: I see the "Introduction" link in the top nav bar now has a drop-down menu, which appears to be done with CSS. Well, on second look, it appears to use javascript. -Paul ___ lilypond-user mailing list

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 03:36 PM, Carl Sorensen wrote: It would be nice if we had multiple sites we could look at simultaneously, so we could say "I like A better than B. If C had X I would probably like it better than both A and B." I'm putting up screenshots of each version here (zoom in to get the

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 1:13 PM, Noeck wrote: > That's a pity. My summary of the opinions here is different: Some like > the proposed changes and some do not. It is sad that the one who cries > the loudest will win. Without some "Director of Marketing" person to decree that *THIS* New Design Shall Be

Re: New LilyPond website

John, I appreciate you bringing your expertise to LilyPond. I'm really glad you have decided to work on trying to improve the CSS, rather than moving the website to WordPress. I would be strongly against a move to any platform that would not have the website fully created by an automated script

Re: New LilyPond website

>Can you try such a beast (whatever you recommend)? Ok, I will take a look at it. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > I don't understand. Where is the point in recreating somthing close to the old look? I thought the whole idea was to create

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/16 11:48 AM, "John Roper" wrote: >I updated the font with a serif font that looks good to me. Please, >what do you think? When I look at the current site, it seems to be a sans-serif font, although it does have a distinction between lower-case l and capital I.

Re: New LilyPond website

> I updated the font (again) and I think it works for everyone's > requests. I like it, thanks! Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: New LilyPond website

I updated the font (again) and I think it works for everyone's requests. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:47 PM, John Roper wrote: >>Can you try such a beast (whatever you recommend)? > Ok, I will take a look at it. > > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Werner LEMBERG

Re: New LilyPond website

>I like it, thanks! No problem, I do too! On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > >> I updated the font (again) and I think it works for everyone's >> requests. > > I like it, thanks! > > > Werner -- John Roper Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist

Re: New LilyPond website

>>> I don't understand. Where is the point in recreating somthing >>> close to the old look? I thought the whole idea was to create >>> something new? He provides fine-tuning, e.g., responsive design suitable to different screen widths. I consider this quite valuable! > I updated the font

Re: New LilyPond website

> Man, you make it sound as if he defiled the grave of Hermann Zapf. :) ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: New LilyPond website

Noeck writes: > Hi, > > Am 30.11.2016 um 19:44 schrieb John Roper: >> I wanted to do that, but I got so much dislike from the community >> members about the design, I redid it in a way that would be more >> pleasing to them. > > That's a pity. My summary of the opinions

Re: New LilyPond website

Hi, Am 30.11.2016 um 19:44 schrieb John Roper: > I wanted to do that, but I got so much dislike from the community > members about the design, I redid it in a way that would be more > pleasing to them. That's a pity. My summary of the opinions here is different: Some like the proposed changes

Re: New LilyPond website

I updated the font with a serif font that looks good to me. Please, what do you think? On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:44 PM, John Roper wrote: > I wanted to do that, but I got so much dislike from the community > members about the design, I redid it in a way that would be more

Re: New LilyPond website

I wanted to do that, but I got so much dislike from the community members about the design, I redid it in a way that would be more pleasing to them. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 1:38 PM, Noeck wrote: > Hi John, > > I don't understand. Where is the point in recreating somthing

Re: New LilyPond website

Hi John, I don't understand. Where is the point in recreating somthing close to the old look? I thought the whole idea was to create something new? Is it possible for you to keep different layouts at different urls for comparison? Cheers, Joram ___

Re: New LilyPond website

Web design wise, I don't need help. If a new branch could be created that would be great. I can also work in github. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 12:10 PM, David Kastrup wrote: > Shane Brandes writes: > >> I gave John yesterday the opportunity to defend his choice

Re: New LilyPond website

Shane Brandes writes: > I gave John yesterday the opportunity to defend his choice of sans > serif font in a private email. Now that that box has been opened > publicly I will comment. Man, you make it sound as if he defiled the grave of Hermann Zapf. > Sans versus Serif

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 10:57 AM, Shane Brandes wrote: > Sans versus Serif is an annoying discussion both styles have their place. Well, at least we don't have to debate Antiqua vs Fraktur, right? Check Wikipedia for a good article on that one. "Otto von Bismarck was a keen supporter of German typefaces.

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 10:11 AM, Mike Solomon wrote: > > On 30 November 2016 at 17.34.33, Paul (p...@paulwmorris.com > ) wrote: > >> On 11/30/2016 09:19 AM, John Roper wrote: >> >> > I added a small shadow to the boxes, and I fixed some coloring of >> > links. You may have to

Re: New LilyPond website

I gave John yesterday the opportunity to defend his choice of sans serif font in a private email. Now that that box has been opened publicly I will comment. Sans versus Serif is an annoying discussion both styles have their place. Sans has been around 200 years and serif fonts since 1465. The

Re: New LilyPond website

Just took a look at the latest version of the new website, and liked it. Thanks for taking the time to make it work with NoScript. --T On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 07:58:35PM -0500, John Roper wrote: >[1]jmroper.com/lilypond >On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 7:58 PM, John Roper

Re: New LilyPond website

It is possible to have a font embedded into the website server side via css which makes the default font argument null. This is not at all difficult to achieve and I routinely rely on it to demonstrate fonts on my website. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:35 AM, John Roper

Re: New LilyPond website

On 30 November 2016 at 17.34.33, Paul (p...@paulwmorris.com) wrote: On 11/30/2016 09:19 AM, John Roper wrote: > I added a small shadow to the boxes, and I fixed some coloring of > links. You may have to force-refresh the page to see the changes (CTRL > + F5) Hi John, Overall, I like it

Re: New LilyPond website

Once we agree on the particulars for this page, I will make one more page and then start to integrate with the textinfo docs. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Paul wrote: > On 11/30/2016 09:19 AM, John Roper wrote: > >> I added a small shadow to the boxes, and I fixed some

Re: New LilyPond website

On 11/30/2016 09:19 AM, John Roper wrote: I added a small shadow to the boxes, and I fixed some coloring of links. You may have to force-refresh the page to see the changes (CTRL + F5) Hi John, Overall, I like it and I think it's an improvement over what we currently have. The responsive

Re: New LilyPond website

> I added a small shadow to the boxes, and I fixed some coloring of > links. You may have to force-refresh the page to see the changes > (CTRL + F5) Ah, I wasn't aware of that command, thanks! Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list

Re: New LilyPond website

I added a small shadow to the boxes, and I fixed some coloring of links. You may have to force-refresh the page to see the changes (CTRL + F5) On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 9:15 AM, John Roper wrote: > Also, I should note that the text on my design is actually larger than >

Re: New LilyPond website

Also, I should note that the text on my design is actually larger than that on the current website especially in the headrer and on the sidebar. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Andrew Bernard wrote: > Not at all - I am merely pointing out that a very significant

Re: New LilyPond website

Not at all - I am merely pointing out that a very significant website with a very large international readership uses a serif font for headings and text, as a counter example. I myself made no argument for either type of face one way or the other. Andrew On 1 December 2016 at 00:20, David

Re: New LilyPond website

>> > You make the argument of readability, and I counter it with this: >> > https://www.google.com/amp/www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/amp/?client=ms-android-google >> >> Perhaps a misunderstanding: The readability concern is the grey >> colour in combination with

Re: New LilyPond website

"At any rate, I don't see ourselves at a point where the most quality-determining influence on LilyPond's web pages is the font choice. So it would probably make sense to save that particular debating field for later, when more prominent questions have been resolved." I completely agree with

Re: New LilyPond website

Updates have been made. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:08 AM, Werner LEMBERG wrote: > > > You make the argument of readability, and I counter it with this: > > https://www.google.com/amp/www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/ > serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/amp/?client=ms-android-google >

Re: New LilyPond website

Andrew Bernard writes: > Hello John, > > You appear to be a person of very fixed opinions. Uh, he works in web design. I would expect him not to work from the inspiration of the moment but rather from experience, learning, and knowledge. > The amount of effort

Re: New LilyPond website

> You make the argument of readability, and I counter it with this: > https://www.google.com/amp/www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/amp/?client=ms-android-google I paraphrase that article (and shorten it thereby ever so slightly ;) ) Essentially on modern high DPI

Re: New LilyPond website

> You make the argument of readability, and I counter it with this: > https://www.google.com/amp/www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/amp/?client=ms-android-google Perhaps a misunderstanding: The readability concern is the grey colour in combination with too thin

Re: New LilyPond website

Hello John, You appear to be a person of very fixed opinions. The amount of effort contemporary typographers put into making both sans and serif fonts good for screen viewing is very large. This matter is not a confrontation or a battle to be won with arguments, with some victor ultimately

Re: New LilyPond website

You make the argument of readability, and I counter it with this: https://www.google.com/amp/www.webdesignerdepot.com/2013/03/serif-vs-sans-the-final-battle/amp/?client=ms-android-google On Nov 30, 2016 7:39 AM, "John Roper" wrote: > In all sans-serif fonts that i's look

Re: New LilyPond website

In all sans-serif fonts that i's look like l's. Just writing this message, my email client's font (Gmail) is the same way. On Nov 30, 2016 7:35 AM, "John Roper" wrote: > I can make the links in the footer brighter and I will look into other > fonts to use. Arial is the

Re: New LilyPond website

I can make the links in the footer brighter and I will look into other fonts to use. Arial is the default font for many websites and it is the fallback font for most web browsers. On Nov 30, 2016 7:30 AM, "Werner LEMBERG" wrote: > > >>> One of the major things on the site that

Re: New LilyPond website

>>> One of the major things on the site that make it look antiquated >>> is the LilyPond intro using the text that looks like it came from >>> a server error message. >> >> LOL > > Concise, readable, informative: must be an error. Hehe. It's very annoying to me that so many sites use extremely

Re: New LilyPond website

Thanks Urs. I have no problem with concise and readable, the text is fine. Just please update the font. On Nov 30, 2016 7:08 AM, "Urs Liska" wrote: > > > Am 30. November 2016 12:58:43 MEZ, schrieb David Kastrup : > >Urs Liska writes: >

Re: New LilyPond website

Am 30. November 2016 12:58:43 MEZ, schrieb David Kastrup : >Urs Liska writes: > >> Am 30.11.2016 um 12:46 schrieb John Roper: >>> One of the major things on the site that make it look antiquated is >>> the LilyPond intro using the text that looks like it came

Re: New LilyPond website

Thus said John Roper on Tue, 29 Nov 2016 19:58:35 -0500: > jmroper.com/lilypond I never got to see the originally proposed changes. At any rate, consider my opinion as just another nobody's voice in the crowd, one of many non-stakeholder LilyPond users, but personally, I

Re: New LilyPond website

Urs Liska writes: > Am 30.11.2016 um 12:46 schrieb John Roper: >> One of the major things on the site that make it look antiquated is >> the LilyPond intro using the text that looks like it came from a >> server error message. > > LOL Concise, readable, informative: must

Re: New LilyPond website

Am 30.11.2016 um 12:46 schrieb John Roper: > One of the major things on the site that make it look antiquated is > the LilyPond intro using the text that looks like it came from a > server error message. LOL ___ lilypond-user mailing list

Re: New LilyPond website

You may have to reload your page a couple of times for the changes to update. On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:46 AM, John Roper wrote: > >Text should stand out. It should be dark. Sometimes it should be bold; > >judiciously used of course like it is with the current main

Re: New LilyPond website

>Text should stand out. It should be dark. Sometimes it should be bold; >judiciously used of course like it is with the current main banner that >says: >LilyPond ... music notation for everyone >Why hide or mute text that is intended to be read? The common design standards use sans-serif

Re: New lilypond website - documentation

"Andrew Bernard" writes: > Hello All, > > Since the website has suddenly come up again as a topic, while I > disagree with a lot of the talk here, allow me for once to say > something positive. Concerning the documentation on the website, this > has always been a good

Re: New LilyPond website

Tim McNamara writes: >> On Nov 29, 2016, at 3:57 AM, Andrew Bernard wrote: > >> If however you are discussing expanding the mindshare of lilypond in the >> music publishing world, then I hardly think the cosmetic appearance of a >> website is the

Re: New LilyPond website

> jmroper.com/lilypond Nice! Werner ___ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

Re: New LilyPond website

Hi John, having read through a whole night of posts on this topic I'd be thankful if you could always reply inline (and possibly delete content you're not referring to). It's very hard to see what you are replying to right now. Thanks Urs PS: I'm happy to see the direction of this

Re: New LilyPond website

I also tested in WebbIE 4 and the site looked fine. On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 9:23 PM, John Roper wrote: > The demo homepage on the site is fully working. All links are correct > (except the navbar). > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2016 at 8:50 PM, John Roper

<    1   2   3   >