Am 13.11.19 um 22:10 schrieb Chris F.A. Johnson: > On Wed, 13 Nov 2019, Michael Siegel wrote: > >> Hello Chris. >> >> Am 12.11.19 um 22:49 schrieb Chris F.A. Johnson: >>> ?? The development version of the site is at https://dragora.cfaj.ca >>> >>> ?? Comments and suggestions are welcome. >> >> It's nice to see someone is working on this. I like what you did there. >> >> Now, if you look at the font-family settings for blockquote, ol and ul, >> you'll see that they are different from the rest of the text. This >> doesn't really make sense, does it? I mean, it surely breaks the site's >> style, in a way, and doesn't exactly aid readability. I think both >> font-family definitions should just be omitted. I've tried that and >> think it really looks better. > > That is on the agenda .....done.
Nice. > (Remember, this is a work in progress, modifying the existing CSS > file.) Sure, I wasn't meaning to imply you had introduced the serif font. It was a leftover from the original CSS file of the current official site. I should perhaps have made that more clear. >> Concerning the colors, I would suggest to >> >> * make normal text (basically, everything that is not a link) slightly >> darker for better contrast > > I think it is dark enough, but I'll try it. > >> * choose a less ?glowy? color for the box frames (Maybe the color for >> normal text would be a good choice.) > > Good idea. > >> * keep links always underlined and blue/red/purple (except for special >> links, e.g., those in the navigation menu), maybe making slight >> adjustments to each color > > I don't like underlining links (except on :hover). I prefer to make > them stand out with bold. I saw this on a site several years ago > and liked it. It seems to be used fairly often these days. I have to disagree on that. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any site that does it like that. But that's subjective, of course. My real point is that making bold text indicate hyperlinks is not a good idea. I mean, isn't this breaking a very reasonable standard way of formatting links for purely cosmetic reasons? I think it is. The problem with that is that it practically precludes ever using bold text for non-hyperlink text (if you're aiming for consistency), e.g., to warn people that `dd`-ing an ISO image to a USB key will [bold]destroy all data[/bold] still residing on the target device. On the other hand, you'll hardly ever see the need to underline anything for emphasis in a hypertext document because there's italic and bold text for that already. And, well, underlining is really for links. I've found a reply to a question about making links italic on ux.stackexchange.com that really hits the nail on the head concerning italic and bold text as well as underlining links on websites, IMO. So, here's a link to that: https://ux.stackexchange.com/a/14709 >> I've tried a few things and found that #005500 would make for a better >> readable text color without being too far removed from what you're using >> now. The headings (h2, h3) were a bit heavy then. But this was easily >> cured by simply making them #006600. Then, I used #005500 as the border >> color for the content and navigation link boxes and reduced the border >> width to 1px. After that, I removed any styling for normal links. And, >> last but not least, I removed the directive for importing fonts from >> Google because that's unnecessary, IMO, and I'd rather have the Dragora >> website not use Google services in any capacity. > > Google is gone. Thank you. Best --msi
