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