[website] When will the new website be ready?
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
In the new website structure and functioning it would be possible to do exactly what meta-comm does but directly on the website.
Wonderful. I really like what I've seen of that so far. Do you have an ETA for that new website structure, BTW? (ducks and covers)
LOL; Loads, aims, shoots... request for help. It would go much faster if I had help in translating the existing content to the new site. And of course help in any new content. I just finished a new set of tweaks to the style from all the recent feedback I could remember. And also fixed the docs charset problem. With that, much of the detailed style work is done. Just a few small things to do. But I think it's ready for other people to help in adding content. So here's the request... If people want to volunteer, it only needs access to CVS, a text editor, and HTMLtidy. If you are intereted contact me. And for those that don't know, the new site design is at <http://boost.redshift-software.com/>. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
I realize this is rather trivial, but can you please use a standard underline rather than the "bottom border" stuff you are currently using for link styling? -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
I realize this is rather trivial, but can you please use a standard underline rather than the "bottom border" stuff you are currently using for link styling?
Why? -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
I realize this is rather trivial, but can you please use a standard underline rather than the "bottom border" stuff you are currently using for link styling?
Why?
Well, my reason is that I like it better. That isn't a reason that will convince anyone else, obviously, but others might have the same opinion; the unusual underlining style sort of grabs my attention as just not quite right, and also makes it not as clear that the underlined stuff is a link. Also, normal underline is more standard for links. -- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
I realize this is rather trivial, but can you please use a standard underline rather than the "bottom border" stuff you are currently using for link styling?
Why?
Well, my reason is that I like it better. That isn't a reason that will convince anyone else, obviously, but others might have the same opinion; the unusual underlining style sort of grabs my attention as just not quite right, and also makes it not as clear that the underlined stuff is a link. Also, normal underline is more standard for links.
Instead of trying to answer this, again and again, like I did the last time. I started a FAQ about the design: <http://boost.redshift-software.com/development/design_faq.html>. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard <jbms@cmu.edu> writes:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard wrote:
I realize this is rather trivial, but can you please use a standard underline rather than the "bottom border" stuff you are currently using for link styling?
Why?
Well, my reason is that I like it better. That isn't a reason that will convince anyone else, obviously, but others might have the same opinion; the unusual underlining style sort of grabs my attention as just not quite right, and also makes it not as clear that the underlined stuff is a link. Also, normal underline is more standard for links.
For what it's worth, I feel a little uneasy about the links myself. That said, I feel uneasy when I scrutinize any link style too closely :) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
I realize this is rather trivial, but can you please use a standard underline rather than the "bottom border" stuff you are currently using for link styling? Why? Well, my reason is that I like it better. For what it's worth, I feel a little uneasy about the links myself.
The link styles seem a bit excessive to me, but it is innovative, maybe I could get used to it, or even find it a plus, eventually. :-) I do feel there is a bit too much of a gap between the text and the "underline". Nigel
Nigel Stewart <ns@fluent.com> writes:
I realize this is rather trivial, but can you please use a standard underline rather than the "bottom border" stuff you are currently using for link styling? Why? Well, my reason is that I like it better. For what it's worth, I feel a little uneasy about the links myself.
The link styles seem a bit excessive to me, but it is innovative, maybe I could get used to it, or even find it a plus, eventually. :-)
It's the innovation that worries me. I really feel for Rene in this process, as I think the link style game is an impossible one to win: links have to be perfectly invisible when reading the text so they don't distract from the content and cause emphasis of words that aren't meant to be emphasized, but they have to scream "notice me" when the user is scanning the page for places to click. Given that, I think the best thing we can hope for is a style that's so commonly-used that it is unremarkable and it just "flies beneath the radar." -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Rene Rivera wrote:
And for those that don't know, the new site design is at <http://boost.redshift-software.com/>.
Nice work! I have one constructive criticism of the style regarding usability. Research has established that we humans find it difficult to read very long lines of text. The optimum seems to be around 10 - 15 words per line. I am of the belief that this should be achieved by putting the text in tables that restrict the line length. See my site at: http://www.dramatec.co.uk/boost-qnx6/ The new design allows the text to flow almost the full width of the screen, and on my monitor with 1280 px across that results in about 30 words per line. OK, so the reader is at liberty to set the width of the browser window... Just my 2 pence worth on the subject of ergonomics. Jim
Jim Douglas <jim@dramatec.co.uk> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
And for those that don't know, the new site design is at <http://boost.redshift-software.com/>.
Nice work!
I have one constructive criticism of the style regarding usability. Research has established that we humans find it difficult to read very long lines of text. The optimum seems to be around 10 - 15 words per line.
I am of the belief that this should be achieved by putting the text in tables that restrict the line length. See my site at:
I'm on your side of this debate, and I'm pretty sure Rene is, too. But there's a long history here. Lots of people resented the fact that so much of their screen real-estate was being "wasted"
The new design allows the text to flow almost the full width of the screen, and on my monitor with 1280 px across that results in about 30 words per line.
OK, so the reader is at liberty to set the width of the browser window...
And that was the counter-argument, IIRC. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On Mon, 06 Feb 2006 08:30:57 -0500, David Abrahams wrote
I have one constructive criticism of the style regarding usability. Research has established that we humans find it difficult to read very long lines of text. The optimum seems to be around 10 - 15 words per line.
I am of the belief that this should be achieved by putting the text in tables that restrict the line length. See my site at:
I'm on your side of this debate, and I'm pretty sure Rene is, too. But there's a long history here. Lots of people resented the fact that so much of their screen real-estate was being "wasted"
I'm one of the group that argued for the current approach. I'd be more swayed by the 'readability research' if the boost site were a blog or something for reading. But in large part the boost site is scanned -- people trying to find the right place to read a paragraph or two. The more scrolling you force the less usability in my view. Jeff
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Jeff Garland | Sent: 06 February 2006 14:15 | > But there's a long history here. Lots of people resented the fact | > that so much of their screen real-estate was being "wasted" | | I'm one of the group that argued for the current approach. | I'd be more swayed | by the 'readability research' if the boost site were a blog | or something for | reading. But in large part the boost site is scanned -- | people trying to find | the right place to read a paragraph or two. The more | scrolling you force the less usability in my view. Strong agreement FWIW. I like it. Paul PS But I do think some of the recent contributions on what Boost offers are worth including too. -- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html
Sorry for the late response... The emails slipped my radar. David Abrahams wrote:
Jim Douglas <jim@dramatec.co.uk> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
And for those that don't know, the new site design is at <http://boost.redshift-software.com/>. Nice work!
I have one constructive criticism of the style regarding usability. Research has established that we humans find it difficult to read very long lines of text. The optimum seems to be around 10 - 15 words per line.
I am of the belief that this should be achieved by putting the text in tables that restrict the line length. See my site at:
I'm on your side of this debate, and I'm pretty sure Rene is, too.
I am.
But there's a long history here. Lots of people resented the fact that so much of their screen real-estate was being "wasted"
That's an accurate history. The first designs I did had both a maximum and minimum width and there was considerable complaint on both ends of the spectrum.
The new design allows the text to flow almost the full width of the screen, and on my monitor with 1280 px across that results in about 30 words per line.
OK, so the reader is at liberty to set the width of the browser window...
And that was the counter-argument, IIRC.
It was also the argument that some readers could not set the width because they wanted to read in limited devices, i.e. PDAs. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
"Rene Rivera" wrote
And for those that don't know, the new site design is at <http://boost.redshift-software.com/>.
BTW The TR1 report n1745 in the TR1 hyper link on that page has been superceded by n1836 (I think?). This is a problem on the current boost.org index page too. regards Andy Little
participants (1)
-
Andy Little -
David Abrahams -
Jeff Garland -
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard -
Jim Douglas -
Nigel Stewart -
Paul A Bristow -
Rene Rivera -
Russell Hind