Fernando de Oliveira wrote:
Em 07-08-2015 15:38, Bruce Dubbs escreveu:
The advantage of the new format is that it handles small screens
quite well. When scrolling, the navigation icons do not move. If the
browser window is small, the size of the icons adjust and the icon
text is removed.
I believe that this is completely lost. Therefore, I cannot see why do
the modification.
Yesterday I tried it in a phone and and a tablet. It is all mixed, body
behind the icons and links, a double tap makes it almost impossible to
be used. Screen is completely cluttered, nobody knows what is what.
I see. It's probably because the phone doesn't handle css3. I took a
look in a tablet and at normal size it looked OK, but if I zoom it via
gestures, it does not do what is desired - at least in my tablet's browser.
I would like to have the original modification accessible for
comparison. Thus, we can easily vote for what we think is progress or
regression.
I did that last night. Just compare the version on anduin with your
local version or the one on higgs.
At identical 1000px width, both look OK. The font size for the new
version is a bit larger, but that could be adjusted or left alone as
desired.
One more thing:
*Modern* is not synonym of *better*. Quite often, it is an antonym, *worse*.
It's just a test. There are some things about it that I like and others
not so much. Right now I am leaning against the change, at least before
7.8. What we need to do is to discuss the objectives and details of the
change. We may still reject the change completely.
Keeping the navigational icons/links in place as the window scrolls is a
positive for me. Having the look change for various screen sizes and
font sizes seems to be a positive too. But there is a limit. No one is
reasonably going to build LFS from a 3 inch screen.
What is the minimum size we would like to target?
Are there other things we would like to do?
Locked the body in place so the column with the nav links are always the
same (or reasonably the same). The body is limited in width and not
centered.
I'm sorry, I would prefer it to be centred, with a minimum value for the
left column.
There is a set size for the left column. For what I consider a
reasonable size screen it is 170px.
For my use, the window does look fairly centered.
Well, at least you agree it is *not* centred. It may happen to appear
centred.
I've removed the max-width entry, so the window size, along with the
right margin value keeps the view consistent.
I didn't change the boxes in the body, but notice that the corners are
rounded and they have a shaded borders. Notes have a yellow left thick
border. Important, Caution, and Warning have a red left thick border.
Contents have a black thick left border.
I would like to see it not ticked but with all background coloured. This
might be ugly, but only can tell if seeing it. Reason: users frequently
skip them (the "Host System Requirements" comes to mind).
I think you are mentioning the style of the admonition boxes. They have
icons associated with them and they can have borders and background
colors. The borders can have properties with width, color, style, and
even images. The top, left, right, and bottom borders can be controlled
independently.
Right now the left border is a different color and the boxes have a
small radius curvature to the corners. There is no change in the
background. The current book has a light yellow background.
All this is quite easy to adjust. What specifically would you prefer?
Table of contents for chapters are centered. You can only get to them
via the Up command from within a Chapter, but that's true of the current
scheme for LFS, but not for BLFS.
I'd rather be able to get to them directly, not using up.
I agree, but I hadn't noticed it before. We've probably had it this way
for 10 years. It will require an xsl wizard to fix and I don't remember
where I put my wand. :)
Can't you find in BLFS what you need to fix LFS (even the current one?)
I think I've figured it out, but not yet tested. In BLFS the Part,
<part id="introduction" xreflabel="Introduction">
...
</part>
has the xreflable attribute. LFS does not. Probably adding that would
fix it up.
We have a current book with one flaw for 10 years needing a fix. And the
proposal is a new one without a fix for that but with more flaws.
Comparing the new with old version.
Better: an icon and links that always appear.
And there are other ways to do it, even with css1. For instance, I
could take the current look and lock the horizontal header in place so
it is always visible. Of course the tradeoff is loss of vertical space
for the body of the page.
Worse: almost everything else.
(Yesterday I had in mind a more detailed comparison, but forgot it.)
I would like to know these details.
Perhaps I should not discuss this any longer. Apparently only the
gradient thing I mentioned was taken into account, and seemingly it was
fortuitous, not due to my comment.
If what I write is not relevant, just tell and I will stop wasting your
and my time.
It is quite relevant and I value your opinion.
-- Bruce
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
