On 1/8/16 5:32 PM, anonymous wrote:
My implementation of the redesign is pretty much complete.
Check it out: http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/
This is an implementation of a design done by one Ivan Smirnov, brought
forward by Jacob Carlborg [1].
The dark forum widgets on the home page are in iframes. Their styling
will need to be updated at the source, which is forum.dlang.org.
Another external dependency is the This Week in D script. Adam, it would
be nice if the `setTwid` function could take the date separately. That
would allow me to word the text without having "This Week in D" there
twice.
Other than those two little things I consider this done. From my side it
could be merged immediately.
I give it my seal of approval. It's a large change but something
familiar enough in style that current maintainers can continue maintaining.
1) Legalities
I mentioned this before, but noone reacted. Can we use Ivan's work? Do
we have his ok? Do we need it? Jacob mentioned that he can't in contact
with him anymore. Is that a problem?
Please reach out to Ivan by email. If he comes later, I'm sure he'll
love seeing his work implemented with credit. The worst he can do is ask
us to take down the page.
2) Reviewing the code
https://github.com/aG0aep6G/dlang.org/commits/Ivan-Smirnov's-redesign
This is just one giant commit (the others are independent minor fixes).
GitHub refuses to show the diff for the style.css file, because it's too
big. Is this acceptable, or do I need to split it up somehow? If I need
to split it up, any advice on how to do that?
I think we're fine.
3) New Pages
Aside from the overall style changes and menu reorganization, I also
added overview pages for the articles and for the tools:
http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/articles.html
http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/tools.html
They feature new text that should be proofread.
Nice touch.
4) Fonts
Vladimir Panteleev has spoken out against web fonts [2]. His argument is
that they can look fine on one system but bad on another. Indeed the
recently changed code font on dlang.org looks pretty bad for me while
the default 'monospace' looks just fine, which is why I reverted that in
the redesign.
The redesign uses a web font for its main font, though: Roboto Slab. It
looks good for me, but I'm not able to test it on a large variety of
device/OS/browser combinations. Maybe it's fine, or maybe we should stay
away from web fonts categorically. I don't really have an opinion on this.
I'd say go with the webfont and let us change it based on forward
experience.
5) Justified Text
Andrei loves it, everybody else hates it. I killed it as the mockup
didn't have it. Is that ok, or is justified text a must?
Justified font only looks good in conjunction with hyphenation. I'd say
make text justified on browsers that support css hyphenation (all but
Chrome I recall?) and left align on the others.
6) Red For Clickables Only?
Currently, the site uses red almost exclusively for clickable stuff. But
it's also used as a highlight color for non-clickable things. For
example in phobos signatures:
http://d-ag0aep6g.rhcloud.com/phobos/object.html#.Object
The left borders of the signature boxes are red, and the documented
symbol is highlighted with red.
Red does not signal clickability here. I don't like that and I'd prefer
to go with another color for generic highlighting, reserving red for
clickable stuff.
Up to you.
7) The Logo
As requested by Andrei, this does not feature a logo change for now. I'm
going to make a pull request for the slicker logo variant [3] when this
is through.
Sounds good.
Thanks. Let's put this in motion!!
Andrei
