On Thu, Dec 5, 2013 at 8:13 PM, Carl Sorensen <c_soren...@byu.edu> wrote: > > On 12/5/13 9:43 AM, "Carl Peterson" <carlopeter...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >1) Review the CSS of both the website and the documentation. These are > >simply CSS files that don't need any compiling or reconfiguring. The > >eyesore for me is the documentation, and it would be nice to start to > >move the two into more of a seamless experience (where there's not an > >obvious change in the look beyond the documentation being documentation > >with a side frame for navigation. > > Personally, I prefer the obvious change in look, because I like to know > when I'm in the documentation. But that's just *my* opinion; others may > agree with you. > > Thanks, > > Carl S. > > Having worked for two corporations that have fairly extensive (and stringent) visual identity and branding guidelines (colors, typeface, formatting, etc.), I've learned that there are ways to make an obvious change between two things while still making them look like they go together. At a minimum, unless we do a complete overhaul of our documentation system, the navigation sidebar is going to be an obvious indication that we've gone to another system. There are other things, such as header bars (as we have), that by their presence will indicate a different system, but the basic design can be similar or the same.
That being said, you may be right, and perhaps we need some additional distinction between the two. *But,* I do feel like the stylesheet on the documentation needs to be reviewed and updated, regardless. Cheers, Carl P.
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
