Andrey Melnikov wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
This "flicker" is only a problem on IE. There's only so much time I will spend on working around bugs on IE. Just like we don't spend much time in supporting old C++ compilers.
I'd suggest just not to use these >> at all and use 2 stylesheets on the page so if user has a browser capable to select stylesheets she will be happy.
The flicker also has nothing to do with the >> images for the links on the menus. It already uses 2 stylesheets, and the next design uses 7. But what you meant where alternate stylesheets. And that doesn't work on all popular browsers.
I'm against JS, page beauty and fixing IE bugs. I'm for standard compliant XHTML/CSS, and for page usability. Boost doesn't e
It's already XHTML & CSS compliant. It's also mostly compliant with a variety of WAI requirements. It doesn't use JS, except to work around IE bugs where it was easy, convenient, well documented. and tested fix. If you don't want "beauty" you can turn the stylesheet off, use a text browser, override with some other styles, or just look at the well structured XHTML source directly.
But I'd prefer more visible links.
It's been noted and will hopefully improve in the future.
Body readability doesn't matter at all for me.
The your are very far away from the target audience we expect to be _reading_ the Boost web pages. Perhaps you should say how you want to use the web pages and we can try to accommodate that behavior, because it may be a common behavior of visitors.
I vote for something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jutland (as an alternate stylesheet).
It's also been mentioned before. And at least one person did a sample of the Boost page with that design. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org