Omar Kilani wrote:
> "Most" of the pages do fit any design. A lot of our changes don't.
> The bit about not making changes is completely untrue, however, as can
> be evidenced by the patch Gavin committed (fixed up headings, content,
> etc) and some major content changes that we've made to give the site a
> more standardised, logical structure and enrich the content of the site.
Yes, but these changes were made for current wwwdevel design and can be ported
to your one with zero additional work.
> Me no English?
Sorry if it offends you, but your name is not quite English-sounding to me.
> The point is, the content follows the design, because you need to
> logically group the content. I got the second level navigation stuff
> going last night, where it dynamically adds the navigation to every
> section, and having an easily editable navigation allowed me to quickly
> move content around because it allows you to visualise what to move
> where very quickly.
BTW, the issue I had with Lukasz' design is that current position within the
site's navigation structure was not highlighted. I see the same is true with
your design. Can this feature be added?
>> Ok, I missed those. I think we need a design document; I'd imagine
>> that Omar and others have become kind of frustrated trying to guess at
>> a spec they can't read.
> The design *is not meant to stretch*. Dave's original requirement (and
> just referencing Dave saying something [to us, even, after the fact] as
> conclusive proof of a discussed requirement doesn't mean it makes sense)
> was to fit in 800x600. No mention of stretchy.
That's because you didn't bother to ask for spec *before* designing, no?
> Not to mention that stretchy doesn't really make any sense anyway. You
> get things like paragraphs spanning 1 line, which is much harder to read
> than if it was in the middle of your screen and spanning a couple.
> There's a reason why our design follows current web design mantra, and
> that's because it makes sense.
"current web-design mantra"? Fixed-width is so 90s! Besides, table-based designs
are also so 90s: look at new mysql.com done with strictly CSS-based approach.
Joshua pointed us in the direction of Mozilla and RedHat sites. Well, Mozilla's
one has a variable-width approach. As for RedHat... well... the more I look at
that the more I see some uncanny *similarities* with your design. Care to comment?
> In either case, the design was designed on 1280x1024, I'm looking at it
> right now and it looks good -- I don't even notice the white space
> around the center column. Mainly because every other website does
> exactly the same thing. Your eyes are trained to focus on the center of
> the screen. And follow text across multiple lines. There's a reason
> newspapers have columns of small width and many lines.
I know how to resize my browser windows, thank you. I hope that everyone else
who uses PostgeSQL knows that, also.
> Not to mention that the current Lucasz design is at 90% width anyway. So
> on the 800x600 it's even smaller than ours. 765 versus 720.
That's complete BS and you probably know it. To stretch it to 95% (or to make
margins constant width) one needs only to fix one style declaration.
P.S. I had some questions  concerning your language-handling patch . Care
In response to
pgsql-www by date
|Next:||From: Devrim GUNDUZ||Date: 2004-11-20 11:06:22|
|Subject: Re: New News Entry|
|Previous:||From: Gavin Sherry||Date: 2004-11-20 04:55:11|
|Subject: Re: Vote on Omar Design|