www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - new layout on wiki4d

reply Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at> writes:
I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
Content itself hasn't changed!

Any thoughts?
Please check also the links on the sidebar!
I have taken this from a template from Justin Calvarese (thanks), so
maybe some links should changed, reordered or even removed!

greets
Matthias
May 28 2010
next sibling parent Ary Borenszweig <ary esperanto.org.ar> writes:
On 05/28/2010 07:47 PM, Matthias Pleh wrote:

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?
 Please check also the links on the sidebar!
 I have taken this from a template from Justin Calvarese (thanks), so
 maybe some links should changed, reordered or even removed!

 greets
 Matthias


Awesome!!!
May 28 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at> writes:
For those, who aren't yet aware of the wiki-site:
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi
May 28 2010
parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Matthias Pleh wrote:

 For those, who aren't yet aware of the wiki-site:
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi



Suu-weeet!
May 28 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Jesse Phillips <jessekphillips+D gmail.com> writes:
Matthias Pleh wrote:


 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?
 Please check also the links on the sidebar!
 I have taken this from a template from Justin Calvarese (thanks), so
 maybe some links should changed, reordered or even removed!

 greets
 Matthias


Oh, wow. I'd been watching you make changes, didn't realize this was the
result. Really nice work.
May 28 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Matthias Pleh wrote:

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!
 
 Any thoughts?


<snip>

Get rid of the abomination that is font sizes in px!  Specify them in em 
or, even better, not at all.

Stewart.
May 30 2010
next sibling parent div0 <div0 users.sourceforge.net> writes:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Matthias Pleh wrote:

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?


 <snip>
 
 Get rid of the abomination that is font sizes in px!  Specify them in em
 or, even better, not at all.
 
 Stewart.


Yeah, apart from that though it looks really sweet.
Nice work!

- --
My enormous talent is exceeded only by my outrageous laziness.
http://www.ssTk.co.uk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iD8DBQFMAwIJT9LetA9XoXwRArXIAKCfuHwA7A6ntCCSqN9HKJGXm4BCFwCeOXEr
DJDvr6kIdptGgf/6OLjwPgQ=
=7Gcf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
May 30 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at> writes:
Am 30.05.2010 23:43, schrieb Stewart Gordon:

 Matthias Pleh wrote:

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?


 <snip>

 Get rid of the abomination that is font sizes in px! Specify them in em
 or, even better, not at all.

 Stewart.



 all
many thanks for your replies

 Stewart
I'm just the initiator of this changes (you know, I'm just a C/D 
programmer), the files itself was written by Wilhelmstätter Simon (he 
works alongside me), I will speak to him about the size problem.

other suggestions are always welcome!!

greets
Matthias
May 31 2010
prev sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Matthias Pleh wrote:

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?


 <snip>
=20
 Get rid of the abomination that is font sizes in px!  Specify them in e=


m

 or, even better, not at all.
=20


	I agree that font sizes in px is an abomination, but font sizes in
em is just plain ridiculous since 1em is defined in terms of the
font size! Use either pt (which should work if the os/browser is
configured properly), percents, or the keywords (x-large, large,
normal, small, x-small).

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
May 31 2010
next sibling parent reply Adam Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
Going OT here, but I've gotta defend the pixel font sizes.

I used to do percents, (since I read somewhere that px is evil and
zomfg never use it...) but I got tired of the constant "bug" reports
coming in from the clients saying "it doesn't match the psd exactly on
my Mac". Specifying them explicitly in px avoids this.

The way I see it, if you care about font sizes, go with px and match
the design. If you don't care, just don't specify them at all.

pt isn't reliable either; it is different across browsers, and
apparently, it is only technically defined in print anyway. Moreover,
the rest of the site's design is probably in pixels, so it is easier
to see it fitting to stick to the same all along.


Now, I hate all designer's choices (in my mind, graphic design is a
synonym for incompetent producer of illegible ugliness), so in my main
browser, I have a min and max size set, so I'm free of their bad
decisions. Every browser in use, aside from the aging IE6, scales px
fonts just fine too, so it is ok there.
May 31 2010
next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Adam Ruppe wrote:

 Going OT here, but I've gotta defend the pixel font sizes.
=20
 I used to do percents, (since I read somewhere that px is evil and
 zomfg never use it...) but I got tired of the constant "bug" reports
 coming in from the clients saying "it doesn't match the psd exactly on
 my Mac". Specifying them explicitly in px avoids this.
=20
 The way I see it, if you care about font sizes, go with px and match
 the design. If you don't care, just don't specify them at all.
=20


	The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
depends on the screen you are viewing the page on. The text for
wiki4d is 1.7mm high on my screen, that's much too small for comfort
(as a comparison, the way I've configured it, the text in
Thunderbird is 2mm high, e.g. 18% more, and lots of people find it
too small when they look at my screen).


 pt isn't reliable either; it is different across browsers, and
 apparently, it is only technically defined in print anyway. Moreover,
 the rest of the site's design is probably in pixels, so it is easier
 to see it fitting to stick to the same all along.
=20


	Pt is supposed to be reliable (and it is reasonably so on recent
browsers, e.g. not IE6) because it adjusts to the screen resolution
(not to be confused with the definition). Pt is an absolute measure
(there are exactly 72 points in an inch) and relates to the actual
size you want the text to appear no matter what medium is used to
display it (whether a 72dpi screen, a 96dpi screen or a 600dpi printer).


=20
 Now, I hate all designer's choices (in my mind, graphic design is a
 synonym for incompetent producer of illegible ugliness), so in my main
 browser, I have a min and max size set, so I'm free of their bad
 decisions.


	Unfortunately, that doesn't work: it is perfectly legitimate for
some text to be smaller (for example the text at the bottom of the
page that says "last changed on..." or "made with...") and setting a
min size will prevent those from being smaller than the page content.


 Every browser in use, aside from the aging IE6, scales px
 fonts just fine too, so it is ok there.


	Yes, it is possible to scale pages, but that's a pain and shouldn't
be necessary anyway. I've configured my browser so that the default
font size (and the default font for that matter) is the one I find
most comfortable to read text. A web site which expects people to
actually *read* the contents should respect those choices (a web
site whose contents is mostly pictures is another matter entirely).

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
May 31 2010
parent reply Adam Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On 5/31/10, "J=E9r=F4me M. Berger" <jeberger free.fr> wrote:

 	The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
 depends on the screen you are viewing the page on.


That's true, it definitely changes across different screens.

I'm probably biased by the fact that the majority of the sites I've
been doing are very picture and video heavy - the pixel measurements
are always the right size relative to the images, which are also sized
in pixels.


Pt is an absolute measure
 (there are exactly 72 points in an inch)


Huh, I read somewhere that it wasn't defined on screen, but only for
printers. I guess I was wrong - the measuring tape agrees with you.
Though, it still comes out different on my Linux box than it does on
the designer's Mac, leading to bug reports whenever I try it.  I
really don't know why, but I've gotta deal with it somehow.

Though, even so, this still isn't an ideal measure. One inch on my
television is a different beast than one inch on my monitor, since I
sit much farther away from the TV... percents would be fine, but they
don't work well for the rest of the page content, so the fonts start
overflowing from images. Gah, the web sucks.


 	Unfortunately, that doesn't work: it is perfectly legitimate for
 some text to be smaller (for example the text at the bottom of the
 page that says "last changed on..." or "made with...")


Meh, not to me. It is already at the bottom, so it is out of the way.
The small size just complicates it if I do care. I feel the same way
about grey on grey text. Bah!


 	Yes, it is possible to scale pages, but that's a pain and shouldn't
 be necessary anyway. I've configured my browser so that the default
 font size (and the default font for that matter) is the one I find
 most comfortable to read text. A web site which expects people to
 actually *read* the contents should respect those choices (a web
 site whose contents is mostly pictures is another matter entirely).


Right. That's why all the sites I do for myself just don't specify
size at all; trust the user in size, font, color - pretty much
everything.

But, the sites for clients are different - lots of images and really
picky reviewers mean pixels it is.
May 31 2010
next sibling parent reply David Gileadi <gileadis NSPMgmail.com> writes:
On 5/31/10 3:08 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote:

 On 5/31/10, "Jérôme M. Berger"<jeberger free.fr>  wrote:

 	The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
 depends on the screen you are viewing the page on.


 That's true, it definitely changes across different screens.


A good discussion of how to size text on the web is at 
http://www.alistapart.com/articles/howtosizetextincss/

The bottom line for its recommendations is to use ems, plus 
font-size:100% in the body tag.
Jun 01 2010
parent reply =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
David Gileadi wrote:

 On 5/31/10 3:08 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote:

 On 5/31/10, "J=E9r=F4me M. Berger"<jeberger free.fr>  wrote:

     The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
 depends on the screen you are viewing the page on.


 That's true, it definitely changes across different screens.


=20
 A good discussion of how to size text on the web is at
 http://www.alistapart.com/articles/howtosizetextincss/
=20
 The bottom line for its recommendations is to use ems, plus
 font-size:100% in the body tag.


	Funny thing is: they got it wrong! The text of that page is too
small here...

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Jun 01 2010
parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:

 David Gileadi wrote:


<snip>

 The bottom line for its recommendations is to use ems, plus
 font-size:100% in the body tag.


 	Funny thing is: they got it wrong! The text of that page is too
 small here...


Indeed, there are many web pages that don't practise what they preach. 
Take a look at this page
http://tinyurl.com/36pb56w
and then run it through a validator.  (Notice also the sheer mix of good 
and bad advice on that page!)

Stewart.
Jun 04 2010
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Adam Ruppe wrote:

 On 5/31/10, "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger free.fr> wrote:

 	The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
 depends on the screen you are viewing the page on.


 
 That's true, it definitely changes across different screens.
 
 I'm probably biased by the fact that the majority of the sites I've
 been doing are very picture and video heavy - the pixel measurements
 are always the right size relative to the images, which are also sized
 in pixels.


You mean if you're using inline images to present such things as 
mathematical expressions?  I'm never sure what's the best thing to do 
about this either.


 Pt is an absolute measure
 (there are exactly 72 points in an inch)


 
 Huh, I read somewhere that it wasn't defined on screen, but only for
 printers. I guess I was wrong - the measuring tape agrees with you.
 Though, it still comes out different on my Linux box than it does on
 the designer's Mac, leading to bug reports whenever I try it.  I
 really don't know why, but I've gotta deal with it somehow.


<snip>

This is because an inch in the context of screen measurements doesn't 
correspond to an actual physical inch.  Rather, there is a setting 
somewhere in the OS that determines how many pixel side lengths 
constitute a logical inch (or centimetre or whatever).  On Windows, the 
factory default is 96dpi.  Other OSs might have different defaults.  In 
any case, it isn't right to work against this setting.

Stewart.
Jun 04 2010
parent =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Adam Ruppe wrote:

 On 5/31/10, "J=E9r=F4me M. Berger" <jeberger free.fr> wrote:

 Pt is an absolute measure
 (there are exactly 72 points in an inch)


 Huh, I read somewhere that it wasn't defined on screen, but only for
 printers. I guess I was wrong - the measuring tape agrees with you.
 Though, it still comes out different on my Linux box than it does on
 the designer's Mac, leading to bug reports whenever I try it.  I
 really don't know why, but I've gotta deal with it somehow.


 <snip>
=20
 This is because an inch in the context of screen measurements doesn't
 correspond to an actual physical inch.  Rather, there is a setting
 somewhere in the OS that determines how many pixel side lengths
 constitute a logical inch (or centimetre or whatever).  On Windows, the=



 factory default is 96dpi.  Other OSs might have different defaults.  In=



 any case, it isn't right to work against this setting.
=20


	Yes and no. Most modern monitors include a small ROM that can be
read by the OS to get the monitor characteristics, including
definition (width and height in pixels) and dimensions (width and
height in centimeters) from which the resolution (dpi) can easily be
computed. I know Linux does it and I believe recent versions of
Windows (i.e at least from XP) do too.

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr
Jun 04 2010
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Adam Ruppe wrote:

 Going OT here, but I've gotta defend the pixel font sizes.
 
 I used to do percents, (since I read somewhere that px is evil and
 zomfg never use it...) but I got tired of the constant "bug" reports
 coming in from the clients saying "it doesn't match the psd exactly on
 my Mac". Specifying them explicitly in px avoids this.


<snip>

People should get their heads around the fact that web design isn't 
about specifying the precise pixel position of everything.

See also this discussion I was once involved in:
http://tinyurl.com/3ysen6d
and in particular Alan J. Flavell's comment (number 12 in the tree).

Stewart.
Jun 04 2010
parent reply Adam Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On 6/4/10, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:

 See also this discussion I was once involved in:
 http://tinyurl.com/3ysen6d
 and in particular Alan J. Flavell's comment (number 12 in the tree).


This thread reminds me of another "bug" report I got a few months ago:
"please use 980px fixed width, not fluid layout". Yeah, I did the
fluid layout (which is the easier way to do it anyway!), which looks
exactly like what they want on 980, AND scales up and down, and they
insist that it be changed anyway.

Another ridiculous one was when the insisted on using html image maps
for text yuck!), so the link's font matches exactly. Thankfully, he
backed off that one.

It's incredible what people will do.
Jun 04 2010
next sibling parent "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Adam Ruppe" <destructionator gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.107.1275674543.24349.digitalmars-d-announce puremagic.com...

 On 6/4/10, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:

 See also this discussion I was once involved in:
 http://tinyurl.com/3ysen6d
 and in particular Alan J. Flavell's comment (number 12 in the tree).


 This thread reminds me of another "bug" report I got a few months ago:
 "please use 980px fixed width, not fluid layout". Yeah, I did the
 fluid layout (which is the easier way to do it anyway!), which looks
 exactly like what they want on 980, AND scales up and down, and they
 insist that it be changed anyway.

 Another ridiculous one was when the insisted on using html image maps
 for text yuck!), so the link's font matches exactly. Thankfully, he
 backed off that one.

 It's incredible what people will do.


An appropriate image: http://www.semitwist.com/download/fp2.jpg

The best types of people to work for are real experts and complete novices. 
Actual experts, obviously, becase they're (by definition) not idiots. And 
novices because they *know* that they don't know anything and would rather 
not give any thought to it anyway, so they leave you alone and trust your 
judgement. The worst people to work for are the tech enthusiasts: the ones 
that know just barely enough that they *think* they're capable of having a 
coherent opinion.
Jun 04 2010
prev sibling parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Adam Ruppe wrote:

 On 6/4/10, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:

 See also this discussion I was once involved in:
 http://tinyurl.com/3ysen6d
 and in particular Alan J. Flavell's comment (number 12 in the tree).


 
 This thread reminds me of another "bug" report I got a few months ago:
 "please use 980px fixed width, not fluid layout". Yeah, I did the
 fluid layout (which is the easier way to do it anyway!), which looks
 exactly like what they want on 980, AND scales up and down, and they
 insist that it be changed anyway.


Do you ever manage to get reasons (or even excuses) out of your clients 
for their ridiculous requests?

That said....

One excuse I've heard for fixed-width layout is that very wide layouts 
are less comfortable to read.  But if that's the case, they can resize 
their browsers!  Like what I said about font sizes, people set their 
browsers to a width that is comfortable for them.

Others claim that some layouts just can't be made fluid.  But that's 
still no reason for a client to insist on it.  And I suspect that in the 
majority of cases the claim is due to the limit of the coder's skill, an 
attempt at making the design too complicated or some linear combination 
of the two.

But those who feel they must set a width can at least
* specify it in ems or some other relative unit
* set it as a max-width, so that nobody has to scroll horizontally as a 
result.


 Another ridiculous one was when the insisted on using html image maps
 for text yuck!), so the link's font matches exactly. Thankfully, he
 backed off that one.


Yes, people who gratuitously do text as images are another silly thing. 
  But really puzzlingly, some people can't for their lives set 
appropriate alt attributes even on such images as these.

Text links can actually look better these days, now that we have 
ClearType.  And now that we have CSS, there's plenty of room for their 
links to be customised.  When I took over
http://www.lrca.org.uk/
among the many improvements I made was to replace the image links in 
navigation columns with text links.  The backgrounds of these links are 
the same as they were.  This killed a few birds with one stone:
- looks nicer, at least with ClearType enabled
- zooms well
- don't have to create a new image every time I want to link to 
something new
- don't have to fiddle around with relative image links

FWIW I've just been reminded of this:
http://webtips.dan.info/wysiwyg.html#HallOfShame
(the entry is out of date with respect to the particular site, but 
still....)

Stewart.
Jun 05 2010
next sibling parent Michel Fortin <michel.fortin michelf.com> writes:
On 2010-06-05 21:16:32 -0400, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> said:


 Yes, people who gratuitously do text as images are another silly thing. 
   But really puzzlingly, some people can't for their lives set 
 appropriate alt attributes even on such images as these.


Speaking of text as image, having the top header in the new wiki4d 
layout be a background image with no "real" content in the HTML markup 
doesn't ring very well with me. Actually, having a <img> element with a 
proper alt="D programming lanuage" attribute instead would be better 
for those with stylesheet or images turned off, printed form (which 
often remove backgrounds including background images), screen readers, 
and search engines.


-- 
Michel Fortin
michel.fortin michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
Jun 05 2010
prev sibling parent reply Adam Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:
On 6/5/10, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:

 Do you ever manage to get reasons (or even excuses) out of your clients
 for their ridiculous requests?


The fixed width one most recently was so it would "look good on the
iPad". Among older ones were wanting to use an elaborate background
image (fairly legitimate, assuming you accept such images as being
legitimate in the first place) and silly insistence that the columns
look the same as the fixed width psd.


 But if that's the case, they can resize
 their browsers!


Amen. Sometimes I feel that I'm the only person who doesn't run his
browser maximized. (In fact, I rarely maximize any individual window.)


 Others claim that some layouts just can't be made fluid.


The most annoying thing is the web is fluid by default - you have to
fight it to make it fixed width! But, meh, people are stupid.


 * set it as a max-width, so that nobody has to scroll horizontally as a
 result.


This is the compromise solution I usually go with, unless specifically
demanded not to.


 Yes, people who gratuitously do text as images are another silly thing.
   But really puzzlingly, some people can't for their lives set
 appropriate alt attributes even on such images as these.


You know what annoys me? alt="image". Ugh. Or another bad one:
alt="logo". gah, these people have obviously never browsed the web
without images! Perhaps, worst of all, alt="left_rounded_corner". Ew!


 Text links can actually look better these days, now that we have
 ClearType.  And now that we have CSS, there's plenty of room for their
 links to be customised.


For my newest work site (the one rewritten in D from PHP actually), I
went wild with the css. The design had image links all over the place.
I replaced them with this:

<a class="button" icon="arrow" href="">Text</a>

The icon attribute there is rewritten on the server side to be an img
right before the inner text. I used a custom attribute to make the
code prettier.

Anyway, the css transforms that regular link into a button, with a
gradient background, rounded corners, an icon, fluid width and height
(height isn't ideal if it changes though, since the gradient is fixed
height. But it uses a solid background color to still look pretty
good), hover and active styles - it is really a beautiful result, with
the one exception of the icon, which doesn't scale well, being an
image.

But, best of all, it is easy to reskin without going back to the image
editor! (I also use a small D cgi program to generate the gradients
for me, because realistically, css gradients don't exist, so they are
specified in the css too.)

I really like it.


 - don't have to create a new image every time I want to link to
 something new


That's the best advantage ever. Going to the image creators wastes huge time.
Jun 05 2010
parent reply Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Adam Ruppe wrote:

 On 6/5/10, Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote:


<snip>

 Others claim that some layouts just can't be made fluid.


 
 The most annoying thing is the web is fluid by default - you have to
 fight it to make it fixed width! But, meh, people are stupid.


Taken the words out of my mouth there.  I once came across this:

http://www.wiltshirefarmfoods.com/accessibility.asp
"Wiltshire Farm Foods has worked hard to make this site as accessible to 
as many customers as possible, whether you have a disability or are 
simply not using the latest technology."

I guess this shows how content writers and coders are often not on the 
same wavelength.

I've a feeling I've come across a delusion that websites have to be 
explicitly programmed to make browers' built-in text size settings work. 
  But I'm not sure....

<snip>

 You know what annoys me? alt="image". Ugh. Or another bad one:
 alt="logo". gah, these people have obviously never browsed the web
 without images! Perhaps, worst of all, alt="left_rounded_corner". Ew!


Sometimes you even see images explicitly mislabelled as being purely 
decorative (alt="").  You may have noticed from the page I linked to 
before that this is one of the many things WebPlus likes to do of its 
own accord.

<snip>

 Anyway, the css transforms that regular link into a button, with a
 gradient background, rounded corners, an icon, fluid width and height
 (height isn't ideal if it changes though, since the gradient is fixed
 height.


<snip>

One possibility is to make the background image tall enough to allow for 
this.  Either do the gradient over the default height and pad it with 
solid colour, or use a sigmoid gradient.  But it would be better if only 
CSS provided a means to scale the background image....

Stewart.
Jun 07 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:huj8co$odr$1 digitalmars.com...

 Taken the words out of my mouth there.  I once came across this:

 http://www.wiltshirefarmfoods.com/accessibility.asp
 "Wiltshire Farm Foods has worked hard to make this site as accessible to 
 as many customers as possible, whether you have a disability or are simply 
 not using the latest technology."


I absolutely love this part: "or are simply not using the latest 
technology." One of my [many] huge pet peeves about the web is how there's 
so many sites out there that feel it's their duty to try to push/shame/scare 
people into using the alleged "latest and greatest".
Jun 07 2010
parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:

 "Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message 
 news:huj8co$odr$1 digitalmars.com...

 Taken the words out of my mouth there.  I once came across this:

 http://www.wiltshirefarmfoods.com/accessibility.asp
 "Wiltshire Farm Foods has worked hard to make this site as accessible to 
 as many customers as possible, whether you have a disability or are simply 
 not using the latest technology."


 
 I absolutely love this part: "or are simply not using the latest 
 technology."


Indeed, you could well ask how you can have to work hard not to use any 
of the ultra-modern features webmasters of the 90s had no trouble not using.

Though I suppose one challenge is remembering which features CSS had in 
those days.


 One of my [many] huge pet peeves about the web is how there's 
 so many sites out there that feel it's their duty to try to push/shame/scare 
 people into using the alleged "latest and greatest".


I know.  Apparently some makers of lesser-known browsers even feel it's 
their duty to try push/shame/scare people into using SOTA mass-market 
browsers instead of their own.  Go figure.
http://webtips.dan.info/brand-x/intro.html
(Maybe I'll ask him if he has anything resembling a list of current 
examples....)

Stewart.
Jun 09 2010
prev sibling parent Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> writes:
Jérôme M. Berger wrote:

 Stewart Gordon wrote:

 Matthias Pleh wrote:

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?


 <snip>

 Get rid of the abomination that is font sizes in px!  Specify them in em
 or, even better, not at all.


 	I agree that font sizes in px is an abomination, but font sizes in
 em is just plain ridiculous since 1em is defined in terms of the
 font size!


Not quite.
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/CR-CSS2-20090908/syndata.html#length-units

"The 'em' unit is equal to the computed value of the 'font-size' 
property of the element on which it is used. The exception is when 'em' 
occurs in the value of the 'font-size' property itself, in which case it 
refers to the font size of the parent element. It may be used for 
vertical or horizontal measurement. (This unit is also sometimes called 
the quad-width in typographic texts.)"


 Use either pt (which should work if the os/browser is
 configured properly), percents, or the keywords (x-large, large,
 normal, small, x-small).


By suggesting pt, you have contradicted the point I was making.  The 
point is _not_ to inflict a fixed size.

No size specified
Pros: Conforms to the size setting that the user has set for his/her comfort
Cons: Some fonts look bigger or smaller at the same point size than the 
default Times New Roman, so the ideal size is dependent on the font

Size in em
Pros: Always scales to the user's font size setting.  Can be used to 
compensate for the aforementioned relative sizes of different fonts.
Cons: If used on body text, it's still annoying if you change the size 
significantly from the default.  Maintaining font sizes of elements 
relative to each other can get complicated.

Size keywords
Pros: Easy to maintain since you don't have to worry about how relative 
sizes work.  Zooms correctly in browsers.
Cons: Those of em, plus it's coarse-grained.

Size in pt
Cons: Those of em, plus in some broken browsers (such as IE) it 
overrides the text size/zoom option.

Size in px
Cons: All those of pt, plus works against the ability to change the 
system font scale.


But you can use em without it becoming too complicated.  All you need to 
do is:
- understand how em works (it's actually quite simple - see the quoted 
paragraph above)
- if you must change the body text size, do it by just setting it for 
the body element
- keep the font size scheme generally as simple as you can get away with

Stewart.
Jun 04 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply "Masahiro Nakagawa" <repeatedly gmail.com> writes:
On Sat, 29 May 2010 07:47:50 +0900, Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at>  
wrote:


 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?
 Please check also the links on the sidebar!
 I have taken this from a template from Justin Calvarese (thanks), so
 maybe some links should changed, reordered or even removed!

 greets
 Matthias


New design is good!

I have a suggestion.
Now, Japanese site on Other Languages is inactive.
Could you please change link?

New link: http://dusers.dip.jp/


Masahiro
May 31 2010
parent reply Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at> writes:
 
 New design is good!
 
 I have a suggestion.
 Now, Japanese site on Other Languages is inactive.
 Could you please change link?
 
 New link: http://dusers.dip.jp/
 
 
 Masahiro



--> done!

BTW:
hey, it's a wiki. You can change everything yourself. Ther is no
registration needed. Just click on the 'edit' link and enter your
username and you can change the content as you need it.

greets
Matthias
May 31 2010
parent "Masahiro Nakagawa" <repeatedly gmail.com> writes:
On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:24:07 +0900, Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at>  
wrote:


 New design is good!

 I have a suggestion.
 Now, Japanese site on Other Languages is inactive.
 Could you please change link?

 New link: http://dusers.dip.jp/


 Masahiro



 --> done!


Thanks!


 BTW:
 hey, it's a wiki. You can change everything yourself. Ther is no
 registration needed. Just click on the 'edit' link and enter your
 username and you can change the content as you need it.


Oops. I have been misunderstanding that editing a page needs special  
authority.
Thanks for your advice.


Masahiro
Jun 01 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent Justin Calvarese <jccalvarese gmail.com> writes:
== Quote from Matthias Pleh (matthias.pleh gmx.at)'s article

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!
 Any thoughts?
 Please check also the links on the sidebar!
 I have taken this from a template from Justin Calvarese (thanks), so
 maybe some links should changed, reordered or even removed!
 greets
 Matthias


Interesting choices on the layout. I'm not quite sure what I think
about it yet, but I think it is an improvement on the old layout.

I had an idea a long time ago to try to match the style of the
Walter's official D website. I don't remember if I decided that it was
too much effort or if I decided that I didn't like the official style
enough (or maybe I just ran out of time), but I still think it would
be nice if the official site and Wiki4D had more similar styles.

At least an effort could be made to coordinate colors, graphics, and
fonts.

It's probably an impossible dream anyway.

jcc7
May 31 2010
prev sibling next sibling parent reply Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at> writes:
thanks for your comments

I've played around with the font-size problem and have setup a test page 
under my folder on the wiki.
I also like the idea from Justin to make the look more like the official 
d-page.

So please have a look, comment here or change the files directly for the 
testpage.
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?MatthiasPleh/TestPage

greets
Matthias
Jun 03 2010
next sibling parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Matthias Pleh" <matthias.pleh gmx.at> wrote in message 
news:hu8r4f$p6j$1 digitalmars.com...

 thanks for your comments

 I've played around with the font-size problem and have setup a test page 
 under my folder on the wiki.
 I also like the idea from Justin to make the look more like the official 
 d-page.

 So please have a look, comment here or change the files directly for the 
 testpage.
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?MatthiasPleh/TestPage


Not a big deal (no pun intended), but the H1 and header/footer links seem 
absolutely enormous.

-------------------------------
Not sent from an iPhone.
Jun 03 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:hu8rgi$q6g$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Matthias Pleh" <matthias.pleh gmx.at> wrote in message 
 news:hu8r4f$p6j$1 digitalmars.com...

 thanks for your comments

 I've played around with the font-size problem and have setup a test page 
 under my folder on the wiki.
 I also like the idea from Justin to make the look more like the official 
 d-page.

 So please have a look, comment here or change the files directly for the 
 testpage.
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?MatthiasPleh/TestPage


 Not a big deal (no pun intended), but the H1 and header/footer links seem 
 absolutely enormous.


And the Links in the Table Of Contents box have way too much vertical 
spacing.
Jun 03 2010
parent reply "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> writes:
"Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
news:hu8rih$qbg$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Nick Sabalausky" <a a.a> wrote in message 
 news:hu8rgi$q6g$1 digitalmars.com...

 "Matthias Pleh" <matthias.pleh gmx.at> wrote in message 
 news:hu8r4f$p6j$1 digitalmars.com...

 thanks for your comments

 I've played around with the font-size problem and have setup a test page 
 under my folder on the wiki.
 I also like the idea from Justin to make the look more like the official 
 d-page.

 So please have a look, comment here or change the files directly for the 
 testpage.
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?MatthiasPleh/TestPage


 Not a big deal (no pun intended), but the H1 and header/footer links seem 
 absolutely enormous.


 And the Links in the Table Of Contents box have way too much vertical 
 spacing.


Other than those things, it looks good though.
Jun 03 2010
parent Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at> writes:

 Other than those things, it looks good though.


thanks!

I've tried to left out the specification of the font-size (as someone 
mentioned here), and the result was this big font!

But now it should look better.



 Jun 03 2010



prev sibling  parent reply =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr>  writes:


Matthias Pleh wrote:

 thanks for your comments
=20
 I've played around with the font-size problem and have setup a test pag=


e

 under my folder on the wiki.
 I also like the idea from Justin to make the look more like the officia=


l

 d-page.
=20
 So please have a look, comment here or change the files directly for th=


e

 testpage.
 http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?MatthiasPleh/TestPage
=20


	Mostly, looks fine here, except that having some headers smaller
than the text body looks funny (of course, h4, h5... are not used
that often in real pages).

	Your font specifications should always end with one of the standard
CSS font families ("serif", "sans-serif", "monospace", "cursive" or
"fantasy"), you should not assume that everyone has one of the fonts
specified explicitely ("Helvetica" for example is not that common in
the Windows world).

		Jerome

PS: btw, do you know browsershots? http://browsershots.org It allows
you to see screenshots of how a web page looks on a wide variety of
OSes and browsers (although of course you won't see the differences
due to the screen that way).
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr



 Jun 03 2010



  parent reply Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh gmx.at>  writes:


 	Mostly, looks fine here, except that having some headers smaller
 than the text body looks funny (of course, h4, h5... are not used
 that often in real pages).

 	Your font specifications should always end with one of the standard
 CSS font families ("serif", "sans-serif", "monospace", "cursive" or
 "fantasy"), you should not assume that everyone has one of the fonts
 specified explicitely ("Helvetica" for example is not that common in
 the Windows world).

 		Jerome


Ah, I see! I will have a look at this


 PS: btw, do you know browsershots? http://browsershots.org It allows
 you to see screenshots of how a web page looks on a wide variety of
 OSes and browsers (although of course you won't see the differences
 due to the screen that way).


Hey, really cool site. But it seems, that my testpage was already tested.



 Jun 03 2010



  parent  =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr>  writes:


Matthias Pleh wrote:

 PS: btw, do you know browsershots? http://browsershots.org It allows
 you to see screenshots of how a web page looks on a wide variety of
 OSes and browsers (although of course you won't see the differences
 due to the screen that way).


 Hey, really cool site. But it seems, that my testpage was already teste=


d.

	Uh, probably by me ;) sorry. It should be possible to re-test soon
(I don't remember how long you have to wait between tests unless you
create an account).

		Jerome
--=20
mailto:jeberger free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger jabber.fr



 Jun 04 2010



prev sibling  parent  Christoph Mueller <ruunhb googlemail.com>  writes:


Am 29.05.2010 00:47, schrieb Matthias Pleh:

 I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
 It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
 Content itself hasn't changed!

 Any thoughts?
 Please check also the links on the sidebar!
 I have taken this from a template from Justin Calvarese (thanks), so
 maybe some links should changed, reordered or even removed!

 greets
 Matthias


Great Work!

I especially like the D Logo in the banner. It looks amazing :]

-- 
ruunhb [AT] googlemail.com
http://www.ruuns.de/blog



 Jun 04 2010