Mailing-List: contact docs-help@httpd.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: docs@httpd.apache.org
Received-SPF: neutral (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v753)
In-Reply-To: <e498c1660804231742x44c6ef1cw1f3ed0a3786a65e2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <e498c1660804231304s5350b34dr5f72b37665a2f43b@mail.gmail.com>
 <20080423231721.3b985237@grimnir>
 <e498c1660804231559n5c75c7f4sa775bf8c055b95b1@mail.gmail.com>
 <186638FD-DF77-4602-B415-52BAF5E3D1E1@gbiv.com>
 <e498c1660804231742x44c6ef1cw1f3ed0a3786a65e2@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Message-Id: <FFF4657D-BEE2-4FCD-9918-4507434ACEDA@gbiv.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2008 19:49:45 -0700
To: docs@httpd.apache.org

On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> What are you talking about Roy? I don't want to get into this
> argument, but just checking one of the those three example sites (the
> last one), I found all three of the "flaws" that Nick was after: does
> not reflow properly for very-small screens, sets font size to 62.5% of
> the user's default, and uses the transitional DOCTYPE.

I am talking about your vague handwaving about small font == modern.
That's a load of crap.  If you look at pages that have been designed
by actual designers, they don't use a bunch of tiny fonts for the
primary content (only for things like legal fine print/credits).
I don't change the scale of my fonts on my browser because I don't
have to -- the modern sites I use don't have tiny fonts and the
crappy ones (like bankofamerica.com) can be adjusted with command-+.

I certainly didn't suggest that every font in the CSS needs to be
enlarged -- just the main content.  It is not readable on my screen.
That is not open to your opinion.  Helvetica Neue is readable at
12pt and 14pt, not at 0.8em or 0.75% of 14pt.  I'd tell you
exactly which one is unreadable but the layering is too friggin
complex to tell whether the 0.8em or 75% is winning.

As far as modern design is concerned, it simply isn't true that
cropping all the images on the page when the window is shrunk is
better than establishing a fixed minimum for the design.  Scrollbars
work better than missing content.  Even better than that is a
separate stylesheet for small screens.  When I access www.apache.org
now with my blackberry, it looks like crap compared to the old design
(which can still be seen on projects.apache.org).  The new design
doesn't even show our logo.

So, in short, -1.  The logo will not change without a full vote of
the PMC (it has been the same since 1995, predates the ASF, and
establishes the feather mark way back in Internet time which is
very important because we never registered the marks).  It is not
supposed to be the same feather as the ASF logo.  The background
is white because that's the background of our nontransparent logo
images, and unless you intend to convert them all there is no
point in trying to change it.  If you want to improve other things
about our site, then go ahead and test out those other things.
I'll bet that you can completely change the look and feel of the
site without touching the logo and without using tiny fonts,
and while you are at it please remove the stupid ApacheCon ad.

....Roy

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org