httpd-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From André Malo>
Subject Re: Change of web site layout
Date Mon, 16 Jun 2014 08:00:45 GMT
* Daniel Gruno wrote:

> > As a user, I'd like to see relevant information. It must be possible to
> > get the relevant information without javascript (yes!) and without
> > random clicking (what should I expect from a non-descriptive arrow-link
> > which feels like an adverstisement?).
> I disagree with the use of the word 'must' here, 'should' is a much
> nicer word to use when one has only personal preference behind ones
> css+noscript combo (identical comment further down, I write in reverse).

A page, where content is not reachable (also for search indexers), is 
useless. If you like "should" better, fine. We should not build such a 

I have similar problems (and I'm not the only one) with the recent relaunch.
We have to try to be helpful, not fancy in the first place.

> > Which means, all maintained releases should be visible at once. That
> > has nothing to do with Apache, that's a simple observation, how people
> > look on software pages.
> A counter-observation is that a big wall of text, where everything looks
> the same, isn't preferable either.

Nobody says, that everything has to look the same. And that the whole text 
blob should be visible at once. But a release overview (Two current 
branches are not that much) would be fine.

> I have tried to counter that, but I 
> will gladly accept any proposals to add all the (non-EOL) releases to
> some form of matrix on the front page. I'm just not sure how to tackle
> it yet.

2.0 is EOL. So it's basically two boxes or something.

> > And yes, as an admin I may have only a text browser available if I want
> > to check the current security state of a software *on my server*. Shit
> > happens.
> Good thing this proposal works perfectly well with Lynx then.

I don't use lynx ;)

> > Anyway, here are some more comments based on a *quick* review. I find
> > the 72h timebox way too short for such a change, by the way, especially
> > over a weekend.
> It's not _over a weekend_, and I'm not trying to sneak in a change this
> big. If I wanted that, I would've JFDI'ed it and taken the flak. But I
> also don't want yet another 17(!) years of saying "hmm we should do
> something" and then not doing anything because we're too busy staring at
> our own navels.

Sorry for that, I messed up the days (it was shortly after midnight here).

> I asked that anyone object if they found something wrong 
> with a 72h lazy consensus, and you have objected, and I will naturally
> take that into account.

Fine. I think, it's wrong.

> We have a web site that screams "we don't care anymore!", and that makes
> me an angry pony. And sometimes angry ponies use lazy consensus because
> it seems like we are only a handful of people who really care enough. I
> am glad that you care, that makes another one of us.
> > (also a screenshot: <>)
> That's a matter of tweaking the CSS, although I hadn't imagined anyone
> visiting with less than 720p these days, so I hadn't tried what would
> happen if someone did. I will correct the styles to also work with very
> narrow screens.

Huh. The browser was 1016 pixels wide. So is the screenshot... How is that 
narrow and less than 720p?

> > - Don't fix the fonts to px size.
> > - The maint font (Libertine) is badly readable.
> I disagree, but we can probably find a font more suitable (or settle for
> Serif if all else fails)

So, you find it well-readable? Try reading the text in the screenshot.

> >   Also, the legal stuff should be reachable without Javascript anyway.
> As stated earlier, I find that to be a very...vague argument.

You might want to have a look at laws of certain countries (Germany is an 
example). Although they don't apply directly, mirroring might be an issue.

> Other than 
> actively choosing to disable JavaScript while retaining CSS styles, you
> won't find yourself in a situation where you can't use the navigation
> properly.

Which is the typical case (using noscript), though. It's easily possible to 
build it working that way. If bootstrap can't do that, we have to give it a 

(no pun intended)

> > - Once I activated JS, I immediatetly found the carousel autoscrolling
> >   annoying (the animation too, because it steals my time, but YMMV).
> That can be adjusted/disabled. I have changed it to 15 seconds per
> frame, up from 10 sec/frame. I'm interested in hearing what others think
> of this.

Yes, my answer was to all. I've just stated my thinkings here.

> > - A final version should remove external dependencies and all inline
> > style attributes. Also, unscoped style blocks within the body are
> > invalid HTML.
> Yes, I have that on my To-do list. I was initially more interested in 
> comments on the overall look and feel, and not so much whether it's
> valid HTML - those things can always be fixed, and any modern browser
> will work with it in any case.

Such an early state should not go to the CMS then.

> > - Btw: There are many !important styles. Why is that?
> It's an easy way to override other style settings one disagrees with in
> Bootstrap.

So simple cascading doesn't work with bootstrap?

So, to sum up, I like it, that you take care of our site. If you check it 
into the repository somewhere, I'm willing to help.


View raw message