Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
On 17/11/17 21:19, Andrew Williams wrote:
> Wow, what happened in
> https://git.enlightenment.org/website/www.git/commit/?id=9f75e7370f168ada24267d6c065a9cbba92ee42f?
> We're all monochrome now :(
>
> a {
> - color: #44aaff;
> + color: #ee;
> }
>
Raster, I think it would work better of the top bar (Main, About,
Download ...) was a few shades darker, and if the Pin'd item at the top
wasn't jet black, maybe if they were all the same color as the
background of the "Talk With Us" or even having it the same color as the
search box would be an improvement.
--
Simon Lees (Simotek)http://simotek.net
Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot___
enlightenment-devel mailing list
enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
Unfortunately CSS is a major weak point of mine. Regards, Jonathan Aquilina On 17/11/2017 02:34, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:38:05 + jaquilina said: > >> Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I >> can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this >> built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to >> include a forums section or something custom built? > > We don't need hosting. We have that. We have a framework: Dokuwiki. Our > content > depends on it and its markdown. It also has discussion forums too. They are > activated on several pages. > > This discussion is really about styling and maybe layout. > >> On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote: >>> +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, >>> modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the >>> times. >>> You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all >>> major >>> linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. >>> Simple, >>> flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are >>> mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The >>> reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the >>> most >>> pleasing to the reader as you said. >>> >>> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: >>> Hi, As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. One of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively hard to read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should be 7:1. Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some random person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of it) a white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to focus your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on 136 subject, where the people reading black text on a white background scored better than any other combination of colors ( http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the links that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can point to would be https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, it would be great, but I would suggest to look at https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could easily go with something like that. What do you think ? Cedric -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >>> -- >>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >>> ___ >>> enlightenment-devel mailing list >>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> >> -- >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> ___ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> > > signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 10:49:01 + Andrew Williams said:
> Wow, what happened in
> https://git.enlightenment.org/website/www.git/commit/?id=9f75e7370f168ada24267d6c065a9cbba92ee42f?
> We're all monochrome now :(
well i was doing the contrast thing. increasing it.
> a {
> - color: #44aaff;
> + color: #ee;
> }
>
> Pretty sure the comment about link colours was that clicked vs unclicked
> should be more differerent - no need to lose the nice blues completely.
> Looking at the site now it's lost most of it's character.
>
> Also, since we have source control, why are we leaving old code commented
> out?
>
> - text-shadow: 0px 0px 10px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5);
> + text-shadow: none;
> +// text-shadow: 0px 0px 10px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5);
i like doing this for things i might undo later or refer to.
> Andy
>
> On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 at 02:33 Carsten Haitzler wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:38:05 + jaquilina
> > said:
> >
> > > Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I
> > > can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this
> > > built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to
> > > include a forums section or something custom built?
> >
> > We don't need hosting. We have that. We have a framework: Dokuwiki. Our
> > content
> > depends on it and its markdown. It also has discussion forums too. They are
> > activated on several pages.
> >
> > This discussion is really about styling and maybe layout.
> >
> > > On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote:
> > > > +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek,
> > > > modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the
> > > > times.
> > > > You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all
> > > > major
> > > > linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe.
> > > > Simple,
> > > > flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are
> > > > mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The
> > > > reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the
> > > > most
> > > > pleasing to the reader as you said.
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our
> > > >> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL.
> > > >> One
> > > >> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively
> > > >> hard to
> > > >> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why.
> > > >>
> > > >> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background
> > > >> and
> > > >> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines (
> > > >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at
> > > >> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a
> > > >> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 (
> > > >> https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
> > > >> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should
> > > >> be 7:1.
> > > >>
> > > >> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some
> > > >> random
> > > >> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of
> > > >> it) a
> > > >> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to
> > > >> focus
> > > >> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is
> > > >> increased
> > > >> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on
> > > >> 136
> > > >> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background
> > > >> scored
> > > >> better than any other combination of colors (
> > > >> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ).
> > > >>
> > > >> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether
> > > >> they
> > > >> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the
> > > >> links
> > > >> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can
> > > >> point
> > > >> to would be
> > > >> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ .
> > > >>
> > > >> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our
> > > >> web
> > > >> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint,
> > > >> it
> > > >> would be great, but I would suggest to look at
> > > >> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at
> > > >> http://doc.qt.io/
> > > >> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could
> > > >> easily go
> > > >> with something like that. What do you think ?
> > > >>
> > > >> Cedric
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > --
> > > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > > >> _
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
Wow, what happened in
https://git.enlightenment.org/website/www.git/commit/?id=9f75e7370f168ada24267d6c065a9cbba92ee42f?
We're all monochrome now :(
a {
- color: #44aaff;
+ color: #ee;
}
Pretty sure the comment about link colours was that clicked vs unclicked
should be more differerent - no need to lose the nice blues completely.
Looking at the site now it's lost most of it's character.
Also, since we have source control, why are we leaving old code commented
out?
- text-shadow: 0px 0px 10px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5);
+ text-shadow: none;
+// text-shadow: 0px 0px 10px rgba(255, 255, 255, 0.5);
Andy
On Fri, 17 Nov 2017 at 02:33 Carsten Haitzler wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:38:05 + jaquilina
> said:
>
> > Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I
> > can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this
> > built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to
> > include a forums section or something custom built?
>
> We don't need hosting. We have that. We have a framework: Dokuwiki. Our
> content
> depends on it and its markdown. It also has discussion forums too. They are
> activated on several pages.
>
> This discussion is really about styling and maybe layout.
>
> > On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote:
> > > +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek,
> > > modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the
> > > times.
> > > You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all
> > > major
> > > linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe.
> > > Simple,
> > > flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are
> > > mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The
> > > reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the
> > > most
> > > pleasing to the reader as you said.
> > >
> > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi,
> > >>
> > >> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our
> > >> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL.
> > >> One
> > >> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively
> > >> hard to
> > >> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why.
> > >>
> > >> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background
> > >> and
> > >> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines (
> > >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at
> > >> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a
> > >> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 (
> > >> https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/
> > >> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should
> > >> be 7:1.
> > >>
> > >> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some
> > >> random
> > >> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of
> > >> it) a
> > >> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to
> > >> focus
> > >> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is
> > >> increased
> > >> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on
> > >> 136
> > >> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background
> > >> scored
> > >> better than any other combination of colors (
> > >> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ).
> > >>
> > >> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether
> > >> they
> > >> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the
> > >> links
> > >> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can
> > >> point
> > >> to would be
> > >> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ .
> > >>
> > >> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our
> > >> web
> > >> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint,
> > >> it
> > >> would be great, but I would suggest to look at
> > >> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at
> > >> http://doc.qt.io/
> > >> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could
> > >> easily go
> > >> with something like that. What do you think ?
> > >>
> > >> Cedric
> > >>
> > >>
> --
> > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot
> > >> ___
> > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list
> > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
> > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
> > >>
> > >
> --
> > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most
> > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http:/
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:28:13 + Stephen Houston said: > Oh I almost forgot. Please please please full width as well. No one does > the centered page with large left and right margins anymore. Use the space, > don't waste it. Full width will make documentation much easier to read as > well. I think you're incorrect. People who publish for a living professionally would tell you otherwise. Reading long lines is hard. I'm just going to take 5 major media publications as an example: http://www.smh.com.au/ http://www.bbc.com/ http://edition.cnn.com/ http://www.nytimes.com/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ No one does it anymore? Really? Professionals who produce content to read have no idea what they are doing? We read down with short lines much better than across, so keep lines short-ish and pan vertically. https://baymard.com/blog/line-length-readability Waste space if necessary. Unless you want to flow columns across the screen like a newspaper and scroll horizontally. Good luck with making that work well with a wiki like dokuwiki. Or manually manage content to have their own private column within a page. Keep the site as it is. I did this very specifically for a reason because it makes it easier to read and more visually pleasing. The professionals agree and the examples in daily life are all around you. > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 4:26 PM Stephen Houston wrote: > > > +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, > > modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the times. > > You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all major > > linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. Simple, > > flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are > > mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The > > reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the most > > pleasing to the reader as you said. > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our > >> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. One > >> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively hard to > >> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. > >> > >> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and > >> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( > >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at > >> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a > >> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ > >> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should be > >> 7:1. > >> > >> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some random > >> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of it) a > >> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to focus > >> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased > >> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on 136 > >> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background scored > >> better than any other combination of colors ( > >> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). > >> > >> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they > >> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the links > >> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can point > >> to would be > >> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . > >> > >> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web > >> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, it > >> would be great, but I would suggest to look at > >> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ > >> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could easily go > >> with something like that. What do you think ? > >> > >> Cedric > >> > >> -- > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > >> ___ > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >> > > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 22:26:01 + Stephen Houston said: > +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, > modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the times. > You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all major > linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. Simple, > flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are > mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The > reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the most > pleasing to the reader as you said. Our design is responsive. It actually was based off bootstrap. Tried reading e.org on a phone or tablet as well as a PC? It works well. There is no need to mess with that I think. Contrast ratio is up for discussion. Links could change color too. Move to #a0a0a0 for text and done (5:1). Change links a bit. Saying "We must be black on white bg" I wholly disagree with. This is part of an identity and that is what our default theme is for our software. Might I point out Windows 10 is light text on dark bg too by default? Visual studio code is too. So is Atom, So is Photoshop and Lightroom ... It's a choice. An artistic and design choice. I made the choice to not look the same and to stand out. Being the same as everyone else is simply not the identity of Enlightenment. It was not created for that nor does it bear that philosophy. Dark backgrounds are common enough and still being done by professionals and winning awards, and they stand out because they are not "just like everyone else". See: https://www.awwwards.com/ https://www.awwwards.com/websites/ Examples: http://beta.wind-and-words.com/ https://www.mirandajoan.com/home http://www.mirrorconf.com/ https://envylabs.com/ https://www.dowhatyoucant.at/ (combo light/dark + dark/light) http://2017.tdsgn.ru/ http://www.thegreat.agency/ http://www.arcys.fr/ http://www.karipidi.gr/ (combo) https://www.artistsweb.com/ (combo) Go find all the sites that are not a white bg, dark text (are dark bg and light text). This has nothing to do with being modern or "keeping up with the times". Professional design studios TODAY often enough choose light on dark. Please don't confuse a design choice of color scheme with "keeping with the times". P.S. I also would argue a big region of blaring white is NOT easy on the eyes. it strains them. Like staring into a light bulb. It certainly does for me. > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our > > documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. One > > of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively hard to > > read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. > > > > The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and > > text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( > > https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at > > least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a > > contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ > > ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should be 7:1. > > > > Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some random > > person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of it) a > > white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to focus > > your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased > > with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on 136 > > subject, where the people reading black text on a white background scored > > better than any other combination of colors ( > > http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). > > > > The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they > > have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the links > > that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can point > > to would be > > https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . > > > > So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web > > site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, it > > would be great, but I would suggest to look at > > https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ > > . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could easily go > > with something like that. What do you think ? > > > > Cedric > > > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > ___ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
On Thu, 16 Nov 2017 23:38:05 + jaquilina said: > Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I > can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this > built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to > include a forums section or something custom built? We don't need hosting. We have that. We have a framework: Dokuwiki. Our content depends on it and its markdown. It also has discussion forums too. They are activated on several pages. This discussion is really about styling and maybe layout. > On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote: > > +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, > > modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the > > times. > > You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all > > major > > linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. > > Simple, > > flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are > > mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The > > reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the > > most > > pleasing to the reader as you said. > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our > >> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. > >> One > >> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively > >> hard to > >> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. > >> > >> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background > >> and > >> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( > >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at > >> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a > >> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( > >> https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ > >> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should > >> be 7:1. > >> > >> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some > >> random > >> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of > >> it) a > >> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to > >> focus > >> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is > >> increased > >> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on > >> 136 > >> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background > >> scored > >> better than any other combination of colors ( > >> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). > >> > >> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether > >> they > >> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the > >> links > >> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can > >> point > >> to would be > >> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . > >> > >> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our > >> web > >> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, > >> it > >> would be great, but I would suggest to look at > >> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at > >> http://doc.qt.io/ > >> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could > >> easily go > >> with something like that. What do you think ? > >> > >> Cedric > >> > >> -- > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > >> ___ > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >> > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > ___ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- - Codito, ergo sum - "I code, therefore I am" -- Carsten Haitzler - ras...@rasterman.com
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
On Fri, Nov 17, 2017 at 10:30:21AM +1030, Simon Lees wrote: > > > On 17/11/17 10:08, jaquilina wrote: > > Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I > > can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this > > built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to > > include a forums section or something custom built? > > > > I think that given doku is already so heavily integrated into everything > all we really need to do is update its style sheets. We can probably set > up doku to have a dark on light stylesheet and a light on dark where > users can choose which they prefer. The latter would be a nice feature if it's easy enough to implement within the existing framework, although note there are tons of "night mode" browser extensions out there that change white-on-black into black-on-white, so if it isn't easy, well there's other (probably better) ways for users to achieve it. Bryce > > On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote: > >> +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, > >> modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the times. > >> You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all > >> major > >> linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. Simple, > >> flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are > >> mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The > >> reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the > >> most > >> pleasing to the reader as you said. > >> > >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: > >> > >>> Hi, > >>> > >>> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our > >>> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. > >>> One > >>> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively > >>> hard to > >>> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. > >>> > >>> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and > >>> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( > >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at > >>> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a > >>> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ > >>> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should > >>> be 7:1. > >>> > >>> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some > >>> random > >>> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of > >>> it) a > >>> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to > >>> focus > >>> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased > >>> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on > >>> 136 > >>> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background > >>> scored > >>> better than any other combination of colors ( > >>> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). > >>> > >>> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they > >>> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the > >>> links > >>> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can > >>> point > >>> to would be > >>> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . > >>> > >>> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web > >>> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those > >>> constraint, it > >>> would be great, but I would suggest to look at > >>> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ > >>> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could > >>> easily go > >>> with something like that. What do you think ? > >>> > >>> Cedric > >>> > >>> -- > >>> > >>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > >>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > >>> ___ > >>> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >>> > >> -- > >> > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > >> ___ > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > > > -- > > > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slas
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
On 17/11/17 10:08, jaquilina wrote: > Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I > can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this > built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to > include a forums section or something custom built? > I think that given doku is already so heavily integrated into everything all we really need to do is update its style sheets. We can probably set up doku to have a dark on light stylesheet and a light on dark where users can choose which they prefer. > On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote: >> +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, >> modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the times. >> You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all >> major >> linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. Simple, >> flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are >> mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The >> reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the >> most >> pleasing to the reader as you said. >> >> On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our >>> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. >>> One >>> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively >>> hard to >>> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. >>> >>> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and >>> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( >>> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at >>> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a >>> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ >>> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should >>> be 7:1. >>> >>> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some >>> random >>> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of >>> it) a >>> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to >>> focus >>> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased >>> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on >>> 136 >>> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background >>> scored >>> better than any other combination of colors ( >>> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). >>> >>> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they >>> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the >>> links >>> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can >>> point >>> to would be >>> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . >>> >>> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web >>> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those >>> constraint, it >>> would be great, but I would suggest to look at >>> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ >>> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could >>> easily go >>> with something like that. What do you think ? >>> >>> Cedric >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >>> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >>> ___ >>> enlightenment-devel mailing list >>> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >>> >> -- >> >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> ___ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- Simon Lees (Simotek)http://simotek.net Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek SUSE Linux Adelaide Australia, UTC+10:30 GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature --
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
I said yes, but the general consensus to that on IRC was strongly leaving toward just theming the doku we have. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 5:38 PM jaquilina wrote: > Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I > can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this > built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to > include a forums section or something custom built? > > On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote: > > +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, > > modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the > > times. > > You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all > > major > > linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. > > Simple, > > flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are > > mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The > > reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the > > most > > pleasing to the reader as you said. > > > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our > >> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. > >> One > >> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively > >> hard to > >> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. > >> > >> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background > >> and > >> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( > >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at > >> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a > >> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( > >> https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ > >> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should > >> be 7:1. > >> > >> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some > >> random > >> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of > >> it) a > >> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to > >> focus > >> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is > >> increased > >> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on > >> 136 > >> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background > >> scored > >> better than any other combination of colors ( > >> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). > >> > >> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether > >> they > >> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the > >> links > >> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can > >> point > >> to would be > >> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . > >> > >> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our > >> web > >> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, > >> it > >> would be great, but I would suggest to look at > >> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at > >> http://doc.qt.io/ > >> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could > >> easily go > >> with something like that. What do you think ? > >> > >> Cedric > >> > >> > -- > >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > >> ___ > >> enlightenment-devel mailing list > >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > >> > > > -- > > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > > ___ > > enlightenment-devel mailing list > > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
Hi guys this is something I can contribute to in terms of website. and I can even host it if you all so desire. Question is do you want this built off a framework, such as wordpress where it will be easy to include a forums section or something custom built? On 2017-11-16 22:26, Stephen Houston wrote: +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the times. You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all major linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. Simple, flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the most pleasing to the reader as you said. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: Hi, As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. One of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively hard to read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should be 7:1. Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some random person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of it) a white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to focus your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on 136 subject, where the people reading black text on a white background scored better than any other combination of colors ( http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the links that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can point to would be https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, it would be great, but I would suggest to look at https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could easily go with something like that. What do you think ? Cedric -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
Oh I almost forgot. Please please please full width as well. No one does the centered page with large left and right margins anymore. Use the space, don't waste it. Full width will make documentation much easier to read as well. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 4:26 PM Stephen Houston wrote: > +1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, > modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the times. > You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all major > linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. Simple, > flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are > mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The > reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the most > pleasing to the reader as you said. > > On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our >> documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. One >> of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively hard to >> read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. >> >> The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and >> text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( >> https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at >> least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a >> contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ >> ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should be 7:1. >> >> Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some random >> person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of it) a >> white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to focus >> your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased >> with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on 136 >> subject, where the people reading black text on a white background scored >> better than any other combination of colors ( >> http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). >> >> The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they >> have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the links >> that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can point >> to would be >> https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . >> >> So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web >> site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, it >> would be great, but I would suggest to look at >> https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ >> . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could easily go >> with something like that. What do you think ? >> >> Cedric >> >> -- >> Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most >> engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot >> ___ >> enlightenment-devel mailing list >> enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel >> > -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
Re: [E-devel] Improving web site accessibility
+1 I've been saying we need a new website bad. And one that is sleek, modern, and yes white. Time to look up to date and kept with the times. You will notice nearly every major linux distribution and nearly all major linux software websites are in the confines of what you describe. Simple, flat, white background and black text, sharp but small images that are mostly subtle, and responsive design to look good across devices. The reason being that this is proven to be the easiest on the eyes and the most pleasing to the reader as you said. On Thu, Nov 16, 2017, 3:58 PM Cedric Bail wrote: > Hi, > > As some of you may have noticed we are doing some improvement to our > documentation and trying to get things easier when starting with EFL. One > of the main issue we are facing is that our website is definitively hard to > read for a lot of people. So Paul went on trying to figure out why. > > The first problem is actually the constrast ratio between background and > text. According to W3C accessibility guidelines ( > https://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG21/#contrast-minimum )it should be 4.5:1 at > least. Our colors are #818181 for the text and #303030 which give a > contrast ratio of 3.39:1 ( https://webaim.org/resources/contrastchecker/ > ). And it is worth for people with vision impairment where it should be 7:1. > > Black on white or white on black would work, but according to some random > person on Internet (could not find a scientific evidence/citation of it) a > white background force your pupils to contracts, making it easier to focus > your eye with a smaller pupil (much like the depth of field is increased > with a smaller camera lens). This could be shown by a test carried on 136 > subject, where the people reading black text on a white background scored > better than any other combination of colors ( > http://lite.mst.edu/media/research/ctel/documents/LITE-2003-04.pdf ). > > The second problem are our links that are difficult to tell wether they > have been clicked on or not. Also they have a slight glow around the links > that makes them harder to read. The best link on the subject we can point > to would be > https://www.nngroup.com/articles/guidelines-for-visualizing-links/ . > > So it would be best to come up with a more accessible design for our web > site. If someone want to suggest a new design within those constraint, it > would be great, but I would suggest to look at > https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/ or at http://doc.qt.io/ > . They are simple and work well in term of readability. We could easily go > with something like that. What do you think ? > > Cedric > > -- > Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most > engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot > ___ > enlightenment-devel mailing list > enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel > -- Check out the vibrant tech community on one of the world's most engaging tech sites, Slashdot.org! http://sdm.link/slashdot ___ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
