Re: /TR Style Sheet Update 2016 - Survey

I'll try to answer your questions.

-What do you like about your current styles?
* It's pretty readable and establishes a fairly clear visual hierarchy.
Basically it's fine.

-What do you dislike about your current styles?
* It often does not work well on mobile devices.
-> position:fixed banners for e.g. "Editor's Draft" take up too much
precious screen space, all the time
-> Too much whitespace around the edges of the document, shortens visible
line length
-> Too-large indentation of lists squishes content to the right side of the
screen
-> The W3C logo does not look sharp on high-res screens
-> WebIDL and code samples do not wrap smartly and cause horizontal
scrolling
-> Indentation of WebIDL blocks makes this worse, maybe it does not need
indentation as it has other visual markers as well
-> Longer headings tend to wrap to multiple lines

I looked at this on a Nexus 5 with Chrome, this spec:
http://w3c.github.io/push-api/ . Probably not the ideal device for looking
at specs, but why make it harder than necessary, right?

Regards,

Michael




On Thu, Aug 6, 2015 at 3:37 AM, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
wrote:

>
> Hello Giri Mandyam and Geolocation Working Group,
>
> On 08/05/2015 06:07 PM, Mandyam, Giridhar wrote:
>
>>
>> -What do you like about your current styles?
>>
>> ReSpec is well-documented, and fairly easy to modify as necessary if one
>> is familiar with the tool.
>>
>> -What do you dislike about your current styles?
>>
>> Newcomers to ReSpec encounter a variable learning curve, depending on how
>> comfortable they are with markdown.
>>
>
> These are not valid answers because they are talking about
> your preprocessor, which is a program that helps you generate
> final spec HTML, and not about the spec style sheets, which
> are what dictate what the spec looks like in the end.
>
> I am asking for comments on the style sheets, i.e. the files
> in this directory
>   http://www.w3.org/StyleSheets/TR/
> (which your output HTML links to), not for comments on your
> preprocessor.
>
> Valid comments would therefore be on what the specs look like
> (and, if you want, on how that look is accomplished via CSS),
> not on the process or tooling by which you generated the spec.
>
> Thanks~
>
> ~fantasai
>
>