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?

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?

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?

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 next sibling parent reply =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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?

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

 or, even better, not at all.
=20

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 =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

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

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.

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.

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
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:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.

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.

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:

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

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.

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:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.

=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

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 next 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?

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

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 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.

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

 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.

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 next sibling parent 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
prev sibling next sibling parent 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
prev sibling next sibling 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
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 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
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 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
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 "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 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:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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

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

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

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

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

 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).

Jun 03 2010
parent =?ISO-8859-15?Q?=22J=E9r=F4me_M=2E_Berger=22?= <jeberger free.fr> writes:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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).


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