www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - cuteDoc -New DDOC theme

reply Robik <szadows gmail.com> writes:
Hi.

I'd like to share with new theme for DDOC named CuteDoc. It can be
found here: https://github.com/robik/cuteDoc .

Live demo can be foudn here: http://cutedoc.dav1d.de/ . (Thanks to
dav1d (from #d) for hosting it).

-- Robik
Oct 28 2011
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Robik" <szadows gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j8f14s$1o78$1 digitalmars.com...
 Hi.

 I'd like to share with new theme for DDOC named CuteDoc. It can be
 found here: https://github.com/robik/cuteDoc .

 Live demo can be foudn here: http://cutedoc.dav1d.de/ . (Thanks to
 dav1d (from #d) for hosting it).

Cute theme! (A ha! A pun!) Little suggestion: If you leave the "modules" and "jump to" already-expanded in the HTML, and then use JS to flatten them upon page load, then it'll work for everyone, not just those who have JS enabled. It's never good to assume JS. One other issue: When both "modules" and "jump to" are expanded, the bottom half of the "jump to" is hidden under the bottom frame of the browser window and completely inaccessible, and scrolling dosn't help (And that's even when I have the browser maximized). Frames have never really been considered good style on the web, and floating boxes are not far off from frames. You may want to consider making them non-floaty: it'll take a *lot* less work to make it work right for everyone.
Oct 28 2011
next sibling parent reply Robik <szadows gmail.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Robik" <szadows gmail.com> wrote in message 
 news:j8f14s$1o78$1 digitalmars.com...
 Hi.

 I'd like to share with new theme for DDOC named CuteDoc. It can be
 found here: https://github.com/robik/cuteDoc .

 Live demo can be foudn here: http://cutedoc.dav1d.de/ . (Thanks to
 dav1d (from #d) for hosting it).

Cute theme! (A ha! A pun!) Little suggestion: If you leave the "modules" and "jump to" already-expanded in the HTML, and then use JS to flatten them upon page load, then it'll work for everyone, not just those who have JS enabled. It's never good to assume JS. One other issue: When both "modules" and "jump to" are expanded, the bottom half of the "jump to" is hidden under the bottom frame of the browser window and completely inaccessible, and scrolling dosn't help (And that's even when I have the browser maximized). Frames have never really been considered good style on the web, and floating boxes are not far off from frames. You may want to consider making them non-floaty: it'll take a *lot* less work to make it work right for everyone.

Thanks for cool suggestions. About second issue, which web browser do you use?
Oct 29 2011
parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Robik" <szadows gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:j8g8oj$qj7$1 digitalmars.com...
 Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

 "Robik" <szadows gmail.com> wrote in message
 news:j8f14s$1o78$1 digitalmars.com...
 Hi.

 I'd like to share with new theme for DDOC named CuteDoc. It can be
 found here: https://github.com/robik/cuteDoc .

 Live demo can be foudn here: http://cutedoc.dav1d.de/ . (Thanks to
 dav1d (from #d) for hosting it).

Cute theme! (A ha! A pun!) Little suggestion: If you leave the "modules" and "jump to" already-expanded in the HTML, and then use JS to flatten them upon page load, then it'll work for everyone, not just those who have JS enabled. It's never good to assume JS. One other issue: When both "modules" and "jump to" are expanded, the bottom half of the "jump to" is hidden under the bottom frame of the browser window and completely inaccessible, and scrolling dosn't help (And that's even when I have the browser maximized). Frames have never really been considered good style on the web, and floating boxes are not far off from frames. You may want to consider making them non-floaty: it'll take a *lot* less work to make it work right for everyone.

Thanks for cool suggestions. About second issue, which web browser do you use?

FF
Oct 29 2011
prev sibling parent reply "Eric Poggel (JoeCoder)" <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> writes:
On 10/28/2011 5:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 and then use JS

Where is Nick Sabalausky and what have you done to him?
Nov 03 2011
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Eric Poggel (JoeCoder)" <dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net> wrote in message 
news:j8vets$2r3r$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 10/28/2011 5:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 and then use JS

Where is Nick Sabalausky and what have you done to him?

Heh :) The main problems I have with JS are: - When it's *required* for stuff that's perfectly feasable without it. - When there's so much JS that loading/using the page slows to a crawl. - When it breaks forward/backward and linking/bookmarking (like on GitHub, for instance). - Abusing JS for dumb/irritating things like pop-ups, pop-ins, excess animation (the rollout animation in cuteDoc is tastefully done though, I have no issues with that), etc. - The syntax/semantics/api/etc of the JS language itself. But I've never had a problem with a little bit of *optional* JS being used to streamline a few things here and there, a least for things that just can't be done without JS. Heck, even I use JS like that now and then. For example, the rollovers on this page: http://www.attentionworkout.com If JS is off (and this wasn't at all hard to do) it still works (You just have to click instead of rollover. It's possible to get *actual* rollovers with CSS alone, but in this specific case, I needed a rollover on one element to change a different element, and I couldn't figure out a CSS-only way to do that. If anyone knows if that's possible with CSS-only, I'd be glad to hear how. CSS is much better than JS for user-experience, but for a developer, sometimes CSS can be just as painful). And before anyone cringes: I didn't design that site, I only implemented it according to provided specs/mockups. And I *definitely* wouldn't normally have audio in a page, but this was intended to be usable by seniors in nursing homes. And I wouldn't normally use Flash to embed the audio, but the newer supposedly "good" browsers (like Chrome) completely crap out on audio embedded via normal, sensible means (ie, the <object> tag): Which always *used* to work just fine on everything until Google decided they owned the internet...Ok, now I'm ranting again, I'll stop... ;)
Nov 03 2011
parent Jacob Carlborg <doob me.com> writes:
On 2011-11-04 04:07, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 "Eric Poggel (JoeCoder)"<dnewsgroup2 yage3d.net>  wrote in message
 news:j8vets$2r3r$1 digitalmars.com...
 On 10/28/2011 5:18 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 and then use JS

Where is Nick Sabalausky and what have you done to him?

Heh :) The main problems I have with JS are: - When it's *required* for stuff that's perfectly feasable without it. - When there's so much JS that loading/using the page slows to a crawl. - When it breaks forward/backward and linking/bookmarking (like on GitHub, for instance). - Abusing JS for dumb/irritating things like pop-ups, pop-ins, excess animation (the rollout animation in cuteDoc is tastefully done though, I have no issues with that), etc. - The syntax/semantics/api/etc of the JS language itself. But I've never had a problem with a little bit of *optional* JS being used to streamline a few things here and there, a least for things that just can't be done without JS. Heck, even I use JS like that now and then. For example, the rollovers on this page: http://www.attentionworkout.com If JS is off (and this wasn't at all hard to do) it still works (You just have to click instead of rollover. It's possible to get *actual* rollovers with CSS alone, but in this specific case, I needed a rollover on one element to change a different element, and I couldn't figure out a CSS-only way to do that. If anyone knows if that's possible with CSS-only, I'd be glad to hear how.

Have a look at this: http://pastebin.com/va5yCx2e The above link shows two ways of affecting other elements with CSS hover. I don't know if it would work in your case, you would probably need to restructure the HTML code quite a lot. BTW, this link is very handy: http://w3schools.com/cssref/css_selectors.asp Have a look at this as well: http://css.maxdesign.com.au/listamatic2/horizontal04.htm -- /Jacob Carlborg
Nov 04 2011
prev sibling parent reply Gide Nwawudu <gide btinternet.com> writes:
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:51:56 +0000 (UTC), Robik <szadows gmail.com>
wrote:

Hi.

I'd like to share with new theme for DDOC named CuteDoc. It can be
found here: https://github.com/robik/cuteDoc .

Live demo can be foudn here: http://cutedoc.dav1d.de/ . (Thanks to
dav1d (from #d) for hosting it).

-- Robik

Very nice. One issue I found was that the struct and class links in the 'jump to' frame have the word 'null' instead of a name. Gide
Nov 03 2011
parent Robik <szadows gmail.com> writes:
Gide Nwawudu Wrote:

 On Fri, 28 Oct 2011 19:51:56 +0000 (UTC), Robik <szadows gmail.com>
 wrote:
 
Hi.

I'd like to share with new theme for DDOC named CuteDoc. It can be
found here: https://github.com/robik/cuteDoc .

Live demo can be foudn here: http://cutedoc.dav1d.de/ . (Thanks to
dav1d (from #d) for hosting it).

-- Robik

Very nice. One issue I found was that the struct and class links in the 'jump to' frame have the word 'null' instead of a name. Gide

Thanks! I didn't notice that, I'm working on it now.
Nov 03 2011