Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On 14 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Andy Wardley wrote: Léon Brocard wrote: Andy, care to put your changes live? All checked in. It'll need to be built on the target machine. What remains for this shininess to be made live? - Mark
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:46, Jonathan Stowe wrote: 2008/12/18 Mark Blackman m...@blackmans.org: On 14 Dec 2008, at 18:33, Andy Wardley wrote: Léon Brocard wrote: Andy, care to put your changes live? All checked in. It'll need to be built on the target machine. What remains for this shininess to be made live? Well the only remaining impediment was my inability to determine from the logs that Andy was being blocked from the server by an entry from denyhosts. Having fixed that I'm sure Andy will get on and do it when he has a few minutes :-) ok, just wanted to see if more tuits from someone other than Andy might help. - Mark
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
Mark Blackman wrote: What remains for this shininess to be made live? The gate keeper of the London.pm fortress hath just this hour granted me access after much wrangling with the dragons of ssh and walls of fire. Verily now that I have entered shall I proceed to make shiny the castle walls. A
Re: be excellent to each other (was Re: I think you meant... (was Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)))
2008/12/14 Nicholas Clark n...@ccl4.org: And if I know that you contribute back it's far more likely that I'll investigate your bug reports straight away, rather than putting them off. For example, that's why Andy got a very full initial answer very quickly. Mind you, some people will still ignore you. Case in point: the previous company I was working at, someone had made a design decision at some time in the past to use a particular library for XML handling. It was not a bad library, the interface for building XML was particularly elegant - somethings that needed careful work with others were straightforward -but as our usage of it got heavier, cracks started to appear. It performed badly under load, and while you could improve this, the method was a little arcane and was passed around the dev team almost as a secret. Then, I found an area where it was just plain buggy. Talking to the Senior Dev about this he said, yes, they'd been trying to contact the developer involved to try and fix it, with no response. The company involved had too much code to change libraries, too much testing and arbitrary changes would have been needed. I took a pragmatic approach, and submitted not only a bug report for it, but an actual diff to fix the bug (it really was a trivial change, but shared fixes are in the community interest). Since that time, not only is the list of bugs in the cpan tracker still growing (a check says 11 - some 5 years old!), but a new version came out early this year - with that bug still in place! Said library has an average review on 2 stars - that's 1 review of 4, and two of one Bottom line: Just because you play nice, doesn't mean anyone else will do likewise. Ignore them, continue on your own path, if you're doing what you feel is right. ($diety help me, I'm paraphrasing Walden. Oh, that it came to this) -- No train here, but still: The sign says: Ready to Leave Normal service, yes?
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On Sun, 14 Dec 2008 21:20:05 +, David Cantrell wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:17:12PM +, Dominic Thoreau wrote: If you could guarantee that full-blown machines would be all that was ever used, maybe. But this is simply not true. Plus the dot pitch is different, which can really screw up some layouts. Also there's this weird assumption some designers have that browsers will fill the whole screen. This is, of course, a silly assumption. Or any other app, for that matter. The only thing I ever have full screen is video, but even that's usually in a window, so I can be doing something else at the same time. -- Peter Haworth p...@edison.ioppublishing.com you need to stop assuming so much, because when you assume, ... Well, you didn't make an ass of me (I can take care of that, thank you). -- David Stone
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:57 PM, Andy Wardley a...@wardley.org wrote: Nigel Rantor wrote: I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version. Here's my reply to Nigel, for the benefit of anyone else interested. reply Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is annoyingly narrow when you've got a large monitor, so a fluid layout was a big win when you had to assume a minimum width of 800px. But these days, it's considered officially OK to assume that 1024x768 is the lowest common denominator for screen width, which gives you a nicely sized I'd aim for 950-ish width - not much of a sacrifice from 1024 - that way you can fit a couple of them side by side on 1920x monitors, which are pretty affordable and commonplace these days. Also *requiring* 1024 or near it doesn't leave people the scope to have a bit of space around the browser to bring other windows up, click on the desktop, taskbar/dock etc. etc. Good stuff tho, big improvement! P bit of content-space to play with. Making it fluid upwards of that tends to result in wide wide columns that are hard to read. So although I used to be staunchly anti-fixed width, I guess I've now been swayed towards them. Making it fluid might be a bit tricky, but probably do-able. I'll have a think about it. /reply I did have a play with it, but it was hard to make it look half-decent with the non-repeating header. So it was a case of junking the header (which I really liked) or spending a lot of time creating separate layers and building up a sliding doors effect. That would have been really nice if I could have got the parallax effect to work (like on badgerpower.com - resize the window and watch the clouds), but I couldn't. At least not in the time I had. Anyway, the site *does* have both fixed and fluid layouts. It's just that the fluid layout doesn't have the non-repeating header or the sidebars. :-) A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
Paul Makepeace wrote: I'd aim for 950-ish width - not much of a sacrifice from 1024 aolMe Too!/aol 960 is a particularly magical number because it's divisible by 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 20 and 24, so it's a good start for grid-based designs, or anything with columns. And as you say, it's got a little bit left over down the side for scroll bars, etc., before you hit 1024. A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
Léon Brocard wrote: Andy, care to put your changes live? All checked in. It'll need to be built on the target machine. I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet. The stylesheet switcher and Go Large mode are now sticky and get added via a bit of JS progressive enhancement voodoo. So everything should degrade nicely for those without JS. I kept the design as fixed width because making a fully fluid layout proved to be too much of a PITA for the time I had available. However the Go Large mode is fully fluid, albeit a little sparse, so it's a good second best. Limited preview here: http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ I haven't yet looked at it in IE. I'm going to go and poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick first. :-) Enjoy! A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:33:34PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet. Heresy! Whilst we fully support there's more than one way to do it, the availability of different hues of orange should provide more than enough alternatives. :-) I kept the design as fixed width because making a fully fluid layout proved to be too much of a PITA for the time I had available. However the Go But anyone who desires a fully fluid layout can download the current source [ svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website-shiny/ IIRC ] and then submit patches. And then everyone will be happy. All of the time* Nicholas Clark * Your mileage may vary. Warranty not valid in some universes. Emotions are sold by weight not volume, and may have settled in transit.
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
Nicholas Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:33:34PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet. Heresy! Whilst we fully support there's more than one way to do it, the availability of different hues of orange should provide more than enough alternatives. :-) I kept the design as fixed width because making a fully fluid layout proved to be too much of a PITA for the time I had available. However the Go But anyone who desires a fully fluid layout can download the current source [ svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website-shiny/ IIRC ] and then submit patches. And then everyone will be happy. All of the time* If it was a site I actively used I would complain loudly and vociferously. As it is, I don't. So I won't. I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version. n
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 19:35 +, Nigel Rantor wrote: Nicholas Clark wrote: On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 06:33:34PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: I've added 3 more colour schemes (light brown, teal and purple) for those who find the orange a bit too garish. I've also added a print stylesheet. Heresy! Whilst we fully support there's more than one way to do it, the availability of different hues of orange should provide more than enough alternatives. :-) I kept the design as fixed width because making a fully fluid layout proved to be too much of a PITA for the time I had available. However the Go But anyone who desires a fully fluid layout can download the current source [ svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website-shiny/ IIRC ] and then submit patches. And then everyone will be happy. All of the time* If it was a site I actively used I would complain loudly and vociferously. I think you meant I would submit patches - strange how sometimes your keyboard goes wrong like that. /J\
I think you meant... (was Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2))
Jonathan Stowe wrote: I think you meant I would submit patches - strange how sometimes your keyboard goes wrong like that. No Jonathan, I don't mean that. At all. If I meant that I would have said it. Do you see? And I object to this attitude that one is not allowed to voice their opinion on a subject if the subject in question is some form of open/collaborative effort that one has not contributed to. There are plenty of things I'm good at. Web design isn't one of them. And at the same time that does not invalidate my opinion when it comes to usability of sites. I am, after all, a user. One who cares about ergonomics. People are, and should be allowed to say I don't like it. as feedback to the people who are doing the work, otherwise, how do they know if the people they're making things for like the results? Since we all know there is more than one way to do it I would encourage you to remember that there is more than one way of helping to build something. And if you don't regard testing and feedback as worthwhile in that regard then I pity your customers and/or employer. This attitude is also, in my opinion, another reason the l.pm is sometimes a less-than-friendly place. Yours Sincerely, Nigel
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
Nigel Rantor wrote: I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version. Here's my reply to Nigel, for the benefit of anyone else interested. reply Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is annoyingly narrow when you've got a large monitor, so a fluid layout was a big win when you had to assume a minimum width of 800px. But these days, it's considered officially OK to assume that 1024x768 is the lowest common denominator for screen width, which gives you a nicely sized bit of content-space to play with. Making it fluid upwards of that tends to result in wide wide columns that are hard to read. So although I used to be staunchly anti-fixed width, I guess I've now been swayed towards them. Making it fluid might be a bit tricky, but probably do-able. I'll have a think about it. /reply I did have a play with it, but it was hard to make it look half-decent with the non-repeating header. So it was a case of junking the header (which I really liked) or spending a lot of time creating separate layers and building up a sliding doors effect. That would have been really nice if I could have got the parallax effect to work (like on badgerpower.com - resize the window and watch the clouds), but I couldn't. At least not in the time I had. Anyway, the site *does* have both fixed and fluid layouts. It's just that the fluid layout doesn't have the non-repeating header or the sidebars. :-) A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 07:35:42PM +, Nigel Rantor wrote: If it was a site I actively used I would complain loudly and vociferously. As it is, I don't. So I won't. I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version. On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 08:48:43PM +, Nigel Rantor wrote: Jonathan Stowe wrote: And I object to this attitude that one is not allowed to voice their opinion on a subject if the subject in question is some form of open/collaborative effort that one has not contributed to. This attitude is also, in my opinion, another reason the l.pm is sometimes a less-than-friendly place. Whilst constructive feedback is useful, may I suggest that (specifically, and not obviously in jest) complaining vociferously about something others did for free, that you are not paying for, is also less-than-friendly. And is specifically something that annoys the list admins. And I forgot say in my previous message joking about heresy by colour, big thanks to Andy for a large wod of JFDI. Nicholas Clark
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
Nicholas Clark wrote: Whilst we fully support there's more than one way to do it, the availability of different hues of orange should provide more than enough alternatives. :-) Aha! Well the brown design *is* actually orange! It's exactly the same hue as the orange (30 deg), but de-saturated and washed out a bit. But it really is officially orange. The teal version is also orange. It's just been shifted a teensy-weensy bit towards the green end of the spectrum (approx 107 degrees if memory serves). Surprisingly, the purple is also orange, but shifted an ickle-bickle bit in the other direction. A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
2008/12/14 Andy Wardley a...@wardley.org: But these days, it's considered officially OK to assume that 1024x768 is the lowest common denominator for screen width, which gives you a nicely sized bit of content-space to play with. Making it fluid upwards of that tends to result in wide wide columns that are hard to read. So although I used to be staunchly anti-fixed width, I guess I've now been swayed towards them. Can I please point out (if just for my own personal feeling of self-justification), that no, it isn't always appropriate to do this? On ultra-portable netbooks (like my Eee) and on mobile phones, this sort of approach can make navigation impossible. If you could guarantee that full-blown machines would be all that was ever used, maybe. But this is simply not true. Plus the dot pitch is different, which can really screw up some layouts. Dominic -- No train here, but still: The sign says: Ready to Leave Normal service, yes?
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:17:12PM +, Dominic Thoreau wrote: On ultra-portable netbooks (like my Eee) and on mobile phones, this sort of approach can make navigation impossible. If you could guarantee that full-blown machines would be all that was ever used, maybe. But this is simply not true. Plus the dot pitch is different, which can really screw up some layouts. Also there's this weird assumption some designers have that browsers will fill the whole screen. This is, of course, a silly assumption. -- David Cantrell | Minister for Arbitrary Justice On the bright side, if sendmail is tied up routing spam and pointless uknot posts, it's not waving its arse around saying root me! -- Peter Corlett, in uknot
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)
Andy Wardley wrote: Nigel Rantor wrote: I've already poked Andy about this when he put up the initial version. Here's my reply to Nigel, for the benefit of anyone else interested. reply Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is annoyingly narrow when you've got a large monitor, so a fluid layout was a big win when you had to assume a minimum width of 800px. But these days, it's considered officially OK to assume that 1024x768 is the lowest common denominator for screen width, which gives you a nicely sized bit of content-space to play with. Making it fluid upwards of that tends to result in wide wide columns that are hard to read. So although I used to be staunchly anti-fixed width, I guess I've now been swayed towards them. Making it fluid might be a bit tricky, but probably do-able. I'll have a think about it. /reply I think that if one wants to have a fixed layout then one (probably) need to also have a limit on the size of the borders. Particularly if one has chosen a strong border colour (which includes white BTW). A example would be news.bbc.co.uk, where they have deliberately chosen a (very) neutral colour for filling in the sides of wider monitors. Perhaps this is a way forwards? Dirk
be excellent to each other (was Re: I think you meant... (was Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted (v2)))
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 09:24:05PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: I welcome testing, feedback and comments, both good and bad. But it is worth bearing in mind that this is voluntary work and any complaints that are *too* vociferous may fall on deaf ears. Or be met with directions to the subversion repository :-) My customers are, of course, encouraged to complain as loudly as they like, and demand any kind of colour scheme, layout, or any other feature that they care for. But then, that's what they're paying for. Business vs pleasure. In September, I went to the memorial service for the head of music from my school, who died from cancer earlier in the year. One of the things that stuck in my mind was another teacher saying that one of the most important things Colin taught me was that you can never say 'thank-you' enough. In this context it was thank-you to the other teachers, for volunteering their spare time to help organise and participate in extra-curricular activities. Things that they didn't need to do; things that they got no payment for. But a choice that they made that benefited everyone greatly, and something you didn't want them to stop doing. The issue is that if the first contact you get from a complete stranger seems to be implying that your software sucks, *and* that they want help for free, it doesn't really endear them to you. It doesn't help that e-mail is plain text, and doesn't have the emotions or nuances of tone of voice, let alone facial expressions or body language, so it's very hard to know how tongue-in- cheek someone's comments are. Smileys, love 'em or loathe 'em, are actually important. But so is phrasing things carefully, so that people can't misinterpret your intent. For example, here's a spectacularly bad way of doing it: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Public/Bug/Display.html?id=38744 Perl 5.8.8 contains an incompatible and undetectable change to the public, documented POPpx macro--the macro no longer assigns the length of the popped value to n_a. This ChangeLog entry appears to be the relevant one: [ 25525] By: nicholas on 2005/09/21 09:32:33 Log: Integrate: [ 24748] Convert POPpx POPpconstx and POPpbytex to use nolen macros. Elminate a lot of Cn_as Our code was calling POPpx then using the value assigned to n_a to allocate a buffer into which the returned value was copied. After upgrading to Perl 5.8.8, the code still compiled, but due to the POPpx change then passed the now-uninitialized value of n_a to the allocation routine. Fortunately, the value that happened to be in that memory location caused the allocator to throw an exception, but it could just as well have allocated a short buffer. It was highly irresponsible for someone to make an incompatible change to a documented, public API without ensuring that code depending on the old API caused the compile to fail. The macros should have been renamed or they should have been changed to take a different number of arguments. There is no telling what third party code might now have buffer overflow security bugs due to this incompatible change. Then read my reply. It starts Thanks for reporting this bug. This was not the first phrase that sprang to mind on reading it. But it's important to remember that we're in this for the long term, and that you may have misinterpreted the sentiment of the tone of the message. Now, most people are not that inconsiderate (including the individual responsible for that report in all his other bug reports), but the cumulative effect of a lot of people turning up with reports that are 100% bug and 0% thanks wears you down. It's one thing if they come from someone you recognise as giving something back to the community, be it software, organisation [eg Kake brings us pubs, MDK brought us the LPW], or just donations [Venda and AntibodyMX brought us beer*]. But most seem to just be take, and you start to wonder why you're doing it, and why instead you shouldn't go any do something else that might be more fun, but less altruistic. Hence partly why 5.8.9 [now wending its way to CPAN - you read it here second] brings you a brand new utility - perlthanks. It lets you send bug report antidotes as easily as bug reports, if you are so inclined. If people want to use it send thank-you message to perl-tha...@perl.org that's great. If people want to say thank-you to me for 5.8.9 by buying me beer, that's great too** (although I can't drink that much, and actually I'd prefer sashimi - mackerel sashimi - I'm a cheap date). But if you like Perl, and want to say thanks, probably the most useful way to say it is to do something no-one else can do. Write about your own Perl Success Story. Counter the Perl is specialist biologist word for stable zombie-meme that wants to eat everyone's BRANES***. It doesn't matter if it's an informal chat to some colleagues, a lightning talk at a local group,
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
2008/12/11 Dirk Koopman d...@tobit.co.uk: Robin Berjon wrote: We need a more ecumenical colour. So purple rather than the more pagan orange? /joel
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 08:12:05AM +, Joel Bernstein wrote: 2008/12/11 Dirk Koopman d...@tobit.co.uk: Robin Berjon wrote: We need a more ecumenical colour. So purple rather than the more pagan orange? Yes! We should use the appropriate liturgical colour for the season! This has the advantage that we will have more Orthodox/Heretical schisms over things like the dates we change from purple to gold, and whether to use rose or blue. Hurrah! More pub dates! -- David Cantrell | http://www.cantrell.org.uk/david Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity -- Hanlon's Razor Stupidity maintained long enough is a form of malice -- Richard Bos's corollary
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
2008/12/12 Léon Brocard a...@astray.com: 2008/12/11 Andy Wardley a...@wardley.org: How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ This is fantastic! I would like to point out that my orange is #FF9900, but that's very close indeed. Andy, care to put your changes live? And if you need any help with access, permissions or whatever catch me on IRC or drop me a note off-list :-)
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 16:09 +, Andy Wardley wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? New Perl Slogan FTW :)
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ I tarted up the layout and styling a bit, added the glass onion (I'm determined to get that on at least one Perl site!), updated some of the content on the Home and About pages (including how to check out the site), and fixed up a few minor rendering bugs. I've just rendered a few pages in the new style, so the Meeting and People tabs don't go anywhere, along with most of the links in the content. A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Andy Wardley wrote:
Andy Wardley wrote:
I can help there.
How about this?
http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/
Pretty :)
Although:
lia href=# onclick=$('#page').toggleClass('wide'); return false
Go span class=go_smallSmall/spanspan
class=go_largeLarge/span/a/li
Can features which only work with JS on be added entirely with JS please?
A link to the top of the page that looks like:
* Go SmallLarge
... is not full of win :)
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
David Dorward wrote: Can features which only work with JS on be added entirely with JS please? Hmmm... the JS *should* be non-JS friendly because onclick will be ignored by non-JS browsers. The Small/Large is switched on CSS rather than JS, but that will fail if you've got CSS disabled. Either way, it's sub-desirable. So yes, I can fix that up to only add the switchy tab if JS is enabled. I was being lazy for the first iteration :-) A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Dec 11, 2008, at 17:09 , Andy Wardley wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ Is nice. One nitpick though: the tab links at the top are maybe a too transparent, they seem disabled to me. -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:09:33PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ Looks nice. Minor niggles: * go large/go small isn't sticky when you change pages * page too wide - the old one re-flows to fit in smaller windows * I don't like all of the new buildings -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information Awww, people say the sweetest things: 18:40 @danshell DrHyde: you sick fuck
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
2008/12/11 Andy Wardley [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ In the finest traditions of pointless bikeshedding, what's 122 Leadenhall Street (its stupid nickname is apparently the Cheesegrater doing in the header? Sure, they've cleared the tower so there's a hole in the ground for it to be built on, but I thought it had been put on hold until the economy recovers. Otherwise, the header is surprisingly geographically accurate, as stylised skylines go. Oh, and I quite like the rest of the page too. -- Paul Mison http://husk.org/
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Looks great! On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 4:54 PM, David Cantrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 04:09:33PM +, Andy Wardley wrote: How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ Looks nice. Minor niggles: * go large/go small isn't sticky when you change pages * page too wide - the old one re-flows to fit in smaller windows Seconded. Would be nice if it fit in a smaller page without growing a horizontal scrollbar. P * I don't like all of the new buildings -- David Cantrell | Reality Engineer, Ministry of Information Awww, people say the sweetest things: 18:40 @danshell DrHyde: you sick fuck
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Andy Wardley wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ Like it :-) The strap line should be Perl is Alive! rather than the shortened version though, should it not ? S.
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 17:12 +, Simon Wilcox wrote: The strap line should be Perl is Alive! rather than the shortened version though, should it not ? No* http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MFnmT82yGpk * or 'yes', if you want to keep the number of syllables the same rather than keep the use of contraction the same.
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Andy Wardley wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ I tarted up the layout and styling a bit, added the glass onion (I'm determined to get that on at least one Perl site!), updated some of the content on the Home and About pages (including how to check out the site), and fixed up a few minor rendering bugs. I like it. At the risk of sounding heretic (and of offending our leader à peine in office) though, the orange hurts my brane. Could we get a Go Blue! button or something? I would be willing to actually add it BTW. -- mirod
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Andy Wardley wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ I tarted up the layout and styling a bit, added the glass onion (I'm determined to get that on at least one Perl site!), updated some of the content on the Home and About pages (including how to check out the site), and fixed up a few minor rendering bugs. The glass onion makes me think this is a site about curry. That may simple be the conjunction with the erm... colour. Which is also rather curry like. As opposed to the definite orange it used to be. Personally I would go for a completely different base colour, or stick to the original orange, rather than shift slightly in the yellow/green direction. But then, I'm not doing it...
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Dirk Koopman wrote: Personally I would go for a completely different base colour, or stick to the original orange, rather than shift slightly in the yellow/green direction. It's the same orange, at least the strips down the side are. The darker orange bits in the header are the same hue (30 deg), but with less saturation and brightness. So no shifty business going on there. http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/colour_compare.gif Old at the top, new at the bottom. Different colours are relatively easy, though. e.g. http://tt2.org/ I'll add it to the wishlist. A
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Andy Wardley wrote: Dirk Koopman wrote: Personally I would go for a completely different base colour, or stick to the original orange, rather than shift slightly in the yellow/green direction. It's the same orange, at least the strips down the side are. The darker orange bits in the header are the same hue (30 deg), but with less saturation and brightness. So no shifty business going on there. http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/colour_compare.gif Old at the top, new at the bottom. Different colours are relatively easy, though. e.g. http://tt2.org/ I'll add it to the wishlist. So it is. My visual memory had it more orange(gy). I suspect the real reason that appears so curry flavoured (to me) may be something to do with rendering it on my 1920x1600 monitor. The original seems to have a fixed *border* width and the new one a fixed central, info panel, width. This means that the orange of the borders is considerably more intrusive, 'cos the combined width of the borders is wider than the bit in the middle. I suspect going to fixed width borders or making the centre panel say 85% wide would go a long way to ease my concern. Good effort though... Dirk
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 18:47 +0100, mirod wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ I tarted up the layout and styling a bit, added the glass onion (I'm determined to get that on at least one Perl site!), updated some of the content on the Home and About pages (including how to check out the site), and fixed up a few minor rendering bugs. I like it. At the risk of sounding heretic (and of offending our leader à peine in office) though, the orange hurts my brane. Could we get a Go Blue! button or something? I would be willing to actually add it BTW. I think the place I'm working at the moment has a similar facility on it's mobile pages - I'll blag the code tomorrow, unfortunately I believe it may be some rather extreme XSSI stuff ;-) /J\
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Dec 11, 2008, at 18:49 , Dirk Koopman wrote: The glass onion makes me think this is a site about curry. That may simple be the conjunction with the erm... colour. Which is also rather curry like. As opposed to the definite orange it used to be. But then again, what's wrong with curry? -- Robin Berjon - http://berjon.com/ Feel like hiring me? Go to http://robineko.com/
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
Robin Berjon wrote: On Dec 11, 2008, at 18:49 , Dirk Koopman wrote: The glass onion makes me think this is a site about curry. That may simple be the conjunction with the erm... colour. Which is also rather curry like. As opposed to the definite orange it used to be. But then again, what's wrong with curry? Nothing, but there is dim sum to consider, never mind the overriding need for pie. We need a more ecumenical colour. Or do a google and have different colours to reflect this week's Thursday luncheon theme.
Re: london.pm.org web site - facelifted
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Andy Wardley a...@wardley.org wrote: Andy Wardley wrote: I can help there. How about this? http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/ I tarted up the layout and styling a bit, added the glass onion (I'm determined to get that on at least one Perl site!), Not as determined as to promote the unoffical secret verbal handshake, I see :-) Anyway, wow. It's beautiful and it still looks like london.pm.org. Very nice! Cheers, -b
