W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-qa-dev@w3.org > January 2005

Re: New proposed styling

From: olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:59:11 +0900
Message-Id: <FEE8B216-5FD1-11D9-B086-000393A80896@w3.org>
Cc: QA-dev Dev <public-qa-dev@w3.org>
To: Terje Bless <link@pobox.com>

On Jan 6, 2005, at 18:54, Terje Bless wrote:
> For lots of reasons enumerated previously, I am absolutely and 
> completely
> against artificially constraining the width of pages.

Fair enough. And I think a 100% width page is hardly legible.
Let's agree on more margins, then.


> Yes, use of units in px immediately lands you on the 
> bad-boy-no-dessert list.

Well, that's a bit extreme (I guess pt qualifies as "no dinner", then 
;) but since I am planning to get back to em as soon as I am done, 
let's not waste too much time here.


> I quite certain I should not need to remind you that Print != Web.

Of course not. But reading text is reading text, and we should probably 
try to make our text pleasant, or at least not too hard to read.


> The fonts have suddenly become «fly-shit» (isn't that the term Nick? 
> ;D) and
> hard to read (as they usually do when “designers” get their hands on 
> them).

Yes, they're too small at this point.


> The blue navigation bar looks weird; just screaming at you.

You mean... the navigation bar, where the most important links are, is 
easy to find in the page. And that is a problem?
:)
Seriously, I get your point, we can tone it down, but I hope you agree 
it's better than grey-on-grey-you-won't-find-me.


> The bakground picture is of dubious value compared to a simple solid 
> color for
> the background (or even the original white).

Little added value, yes. It's marginally "nicer" (and I assume even 
that is arguable). Consider that an attempt, shameless, to woo "web 
designers", who are a large part of our audience, and often fail to 
take us seriously because our page design "sucks".

Our addition of a few images went in the right direction, and got 
proper reception (improving our "human" image). I would like to go a 
little farther. Obviously, the validator should not get too fancy, but 
at the moment the balance is largely toward austerity.

> And finally; we discussed changes of this type in a previous meeting — 
> in the
> context of implementing Tabtastic for result pages — and decided that 
> we
> should not make any such changes for 0.7.0.

Yes, that was spontaneous, I started with a "base.css" from scratch to 
see what I could do. This was not planned, but it's not meant nor 
supposed to slow down 0.7.0. Should 0.7.0 be ready code wise while the 
style is not, I can branch out, or simply revert if the consensus shows 
that the current prod design is just fine.

Thanks a lot for the comments and suggestions.
-- 
olivier

Received on Thursday, 6 January 2005 10:59:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 19 August 2010 18:12:45 GMT