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.
On 18 Dec 2008, at 11:46, Jonathan Stowe wrote:
2008/12/18 Mark Blackman :
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 li
2008/12/18 Mark Blackman :
> 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 imp
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
Paul Makepeace wrote:
I'd aim for 950-ish width - not much of a sacrifice from 1024
Me Too!
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'
On Sun, Dec 14, 2008 at 8:57 PM, 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.
>
>
>
> Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is ann
2008/12/14 Nicholas Clark :
> 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
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 re
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
> s
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.
Yes. I've always been a fluid-layout kinda guy. 800x600 is annoyingly
narrow when you've got a large monitor,
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.
True. I should have quantified that a bit better as referring to typical
desktop
Nigel Rantor 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.
I have no objection to you voicing your objections.
And at the same time that doe
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 simp
2008/12/14 Andy Wardley :
> 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
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-saturate
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 +, Nige
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.
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 wa
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
opinio
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 st
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
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 availab
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
2008/12/12 Léon Brocard :
> 2008/12/11 Andy Wardley :
>
>> 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 wi
2008/12/11 Andy Wardley :
> 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?
Léon
On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 08:12:05AM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> 2008/12/11 Dirk Koopman :
> > 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
2008/12/11 Dirk Koopman :
> Robin Berjon wrote:
> We need a more ecumenical colour.
So purple rather than the more pagan orange?
/joel
On Thu, Dec 11, 2008 at 2:09 PM, 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!),
Not as deter
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 wr
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?
--
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
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 a
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 d
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 (
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
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
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.
On Thu, 2008-12-11 at 16:54 +, David Cantrell wrote:
> Looks nice. Minor niggles:
> * I don't like all of the new buildings
I notice most of them are in the background shade. Coincidence? :)
Another minor niggle; I think it should say 'London Perl Mongers' at
the top rather than 'london
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 chang
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
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
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/
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. Eithe
Andy Wardley wrote:
Andy Wardley wrote:
I can help there.
How about this?
http://wardley.org/london.pm.org/
Pretty :)
Although:
Go SmallLarge
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 Sma
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 chec
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 :)
2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/10 Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake
>> up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now!
>>
>
> My dad was on
2008/12/10 Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Aaron Trevena wrote:
>>
>> My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating
>> carving a swan out of ice.
>
> Did he do well?
To my horror, the internet knows *all*!
http://www.tv.com/the-generation-game/larry-graysons-generation-game/
Aaron Trevena wrote:
My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating
carving a swan out of ice.
Did he do well?
A
2008/12/10 Joel Bernstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 2008/12/10 Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>
>>> Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake
>>> up the london.pm.org
On Wed, Dec 10, 2008 at 04:46:34PM +, Joel Bernstein wrote:
> 2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
[...]
>> My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating carving a
>> swan out of ice.
> How did the swan get into the ice in the first place?
Somebody overfed it and it
2008/12/10 Aaron Trevena <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/10 Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>> Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake
>> up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now!
>>
>
> My dad was on
2008/12/10 Andy Wardley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake
> up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now!
>
My dad was on the Generation Game, I think he was demonstrating
carving a swan out of ice.
That
y angle
4) It doesn't mention the secret Perl verbal handshake
I can help there.
Alright my loves, you've got as long as it takes to shake
up the london.pm.org web site... starting from... now!
A
2008/12/10 Léon Brocard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> London.pm has done many great things in the past. We shall do great
> things in the future. Let's concentrate for now on something that we
> have the power to change in the short term.
>
> http://london.pm.org/ is our web site. It's orange, which is ni
2008/12/10 Léon Brocard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> You can check out the website code using Subversion: svn co
> https://london.pm.org/svn/website/
Sorry, this should be svn co https://london.pm.org/svn/website-shiny/
Léon
London.pm has done many great things in the past. We shall do great
things in the future. Let's concentrate for now on something that we
have the power to change in the short term.
http://london.pm.org/ is our web site. It's orange, which is nice.
However, I can spot a few things that we can impro
Piers Cawley wrote:
> Paul Mison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On 22/06/2001 at 10:30 +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
> > > Mostly because of this. No steenking fixed-size fonts, OK?
> > > (And no fixed font name, either, for that matter!) If I have
> > > bad eyesight and want a larger font, or
Paul Mison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On 22/06/2001 at 10:30 +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
> >Paul Makepeace wrote:
> >
> >> Very pretty.
> >
> >I disagree.
>
> My take: it looks nice, except for the fact I keep my browser windows
> nice and narrow (~600px) so it needs to be scrolled right->lef
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 11:30:10AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> Mostly because of this. No steenking fixed-size fonts, OK? (And no fixed
> font name, either, for that matter!) If I have bad eyesight and want a
> larger font, or if my favourite font is not one of the list and needs a
> bigger size
on 22/6/01 10:48 am, Paul Mison wrote:
> Any decent web browser can be told to ignore stylesheets, so why not
> just do that, if you care so much? Or are you talking about a
> hypothetical user who has these issues but doesn't know how to
> configure their software?
The bad things about it is th
On 22/06/2001 at 10:30 +0100, Philip Newton wrote:
>Paul Makepeace wrote:
>
>> Very pretty.
>
>I disagree.
My take: it looks nice, except for the fact I keep my browser windows
nice and narrow (~600px) so it needs to be scrolled right->left to read
everything. If I cared enough I'd send in my own
Philip,
I'll email you the top and bottom bit and the style sheet
so you can set it up as you think it should be.
Cheers
Leo
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 11:30:10AM +0200, Philip Newton wrote:
> No steenking fixed-size fonts, OK? (And no fixed
> font name, either, for that matter!) If I have bad ey
Leo Lapworth wrote:
> Comments etc to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://london.pm.org/about/faq.html =~ s/One day we hope to move the list to
it.//;
The list is already hosted on the server :)
Cheers,
Philip
--
Philip Newton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
All opinions are my own, not my employer's.
If you're not
Paul Makepeace wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:01:12PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote:
> > http://london.pm.org/
>
> Very pretty.
I disagree.
> /style.css:
>
> .bold { color: #1e2d39; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;
> font-size: 10px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica }
On Fri, Jun 22, 2001 at 08:49:24AM +0100, Greg McCarroll wrote:
> how about putting it under CVS then, with the script that
> `publishes' the files being run only by Leo(or others) in
> his role of webmaster/QA of the web?
In my capacity as unofficial QA of the site, I think this is a great idea
* Leo Lapworth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> Probably, but it works and as the guy doing the design did it
> for free, and has nothing todo with perl, or even London.pm other
> than he's my mate, I'm thankful :)
i like the design a lot, and if your mate ever makes it to a meeting
he can expect
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 02:31:14PM -0700, Paul Makepeace wrote:
> /style.css:
>
> .bold { color: #1e2d39; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;
> font-size: 10px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica }
>
> (.bold is overkill, IMO, is a valid XHTML tag... Or perhaps more
> specifi
On Thu, Jun 21, 2001 at 10:01:12PM +0100, Leo Lapworth wrote:
> Well, I think the subject says it all.
>
> http://london.pm.org/
Very pretty.
/style.css:
.bold { color: #1e2d39; font-style: normal; font-weight: bold;
font-size: 10px; font-family: Verdana, Geneva, Arial, Helvetica }
Heh he
Well, I think the subject says it all.
http://london.pm.org/
Comments etc to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Also content very welcome, let me know
if you want to add something so we can
work out the easyest yea.
Leo
69 matches
Mail list logo
