[website] Link styles.
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle similar to the one I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the style use in Wikipedia there are some significant differences. So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle similar to the one I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the style use in Wikipedia there are some significant differences.
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
Oops I forgot to include the link again <http://boost.redshift-software.com/> :-\ -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle similar to the one I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the style use in Wikipedia there are some significant differences.
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
I like it a lot. No objections here. IMO, it is definitely an improvement. Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman <djowel@gmail.com> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle similar to the one I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the style use in Wikipedia there are some significant differences.
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
I like it a lot. No objections here. IMO, it is definitely an improvement.
Even though I implied I disliked all link styles equally, I think Joel's right. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:43:14 -0600, Rene Rivera wrote
Rene Rivera wrote:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle similar to the one I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the style use in Wikipedia there are some significant differences.
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
Oops I forgot to include the link again <http://boost.redshift-software.com/> :-\
I like it. The color difference is enough to see it and with the roll-over feedback you get the idea what's going on pretty fast. Now that you have Joel and me convinced it should be a cakewalk ;-) Jeff
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
I like the link styles, but I hate the picture behind the logo across the top of the page. IMHO it is far too abstract. I preferred the more regular pattern you were using earlier. Jim
[link style] its obvious, but I don't know where I've been - minor. Jim Douglas wrote:
I like the link styles, but I hate the picture behind the logo across the top of the page. IMHO it is far too abstract. I preferred the more regular pattern you were using earlier.
[Logo bar] On my screen I'd like to see the "C++ Libraries" and the general quote stand out more. The sharp area of the image draws too much attention and takes you eye away from the Boost logo. [main body] It might be nice to surround the page with a little white border perhaps, especially for the main body text. Perhaps aligned with the indented 'welcome' tab. - this is 'worse' on the 'Libraries' page as with my screen width there is a large gap between the 'term' and the 'definition' which if the left edge was indented would be smaller. [footer] should it not have the same styling as the top with a little white surrounding it? I find it odd that the footer changes size depending on the main body content, it gets quite large on some of the more empty pages. It also makes it jump off screen when showing the 'index' tab for instance - minor. [index tab] This page is just all messed up, bullets are right on the left edge of the page, there is a lone bullet next to the "Get Boost" logo, the Documentation section is below the Search box (aligned vertically with the end of the 'Development' section) [general comment] Too many shades of blue on the large colour regions? the general colour of the upper picture I like, the more muted dark blue at the bottom should be the same colour. perhaps too much use of 'shadowing'. Looks much improved from the older design. Firefox 1.5.0.1 Windows with about 1080x770 pixels area for the page content. Kevin -- | Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this | | Senior Technology | My employer for certain | | And Network Systems Architect | Not even myself |
Kevin Wheatley wrote:
[Logo bar] On my screen I'd like to see the "C++ Libraries" and the general quote stand out more. The sharp area of the image draws too much attention and takes you eye away from the Boost logo.
Yes. This was what I've been telling Rene. Again, if you want to keep the image, it'll help to blur the background a bit more. For me, I'd choose a more subtle background.
Too many shades of blue on the large colour regions? the general colour of the upper picture I like, the more muted dark blue at the bottom should be the same colour. perhaps too much use of 'shadowing'.
I agree. Now that the links are blue, it should be fine to lessen the overall blue a bit. Perhaps the headings can revert back to black now. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Kevin Wheatley wrote:
Too many shades of blue on the large colour regions? the general colour of the upper picture I like, the more muted dark blue at the bottom should be the same colour. perhaps too much use of 'shadowing'.
I agree. Now that the links are blue, it should be fine to lessen the overall blue a bit. Perhaps the headings can revert back to black now.
I personally prefer the blue headings over black ones. And I think the new link style is a huge improvement. - Reece
Reece Dunn wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Kevin Wheatley wrote:
Too many shades of blue on the large colour regions? the general colour of the upper picture I like, the more muted dark blue at the bottom should be the same colour. perhaps too much use of 'shadowing'.
I agree. Now that the links are blue, it should be fine to lessen the overall blue a bit. Perhaps the headings can revert back to black now.
I personally prefer the blue headings over black ones. And I think the new link style is a huge improvement.
You know, me too :) In fact that's something I missed with the BoostBook CSS design. There were a couple of objections back then. IIRC, some say they look like links, too much blue, etc. Oh well. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Reece Dunn wrote:
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Kevin Wheatley wrote:
Too many shades of blue on the large colour regions? the general colour of the upper picture I like, the more muted dark blue at the bottom should be the same colour. perhaps too much use of 'shadowing'.
I agree. Now that the links are blue, it should be fine to lessen the overall blue a bit. Perhaps the headings can revert back to black now.
I personally prefer the blue headings over black ones. And I think the new link style is a huge improvement.
You know, me too :) In fact that's something I missed with the BoostBook CSS design. There were a couple of objections back then. IIRC, some say they look like links, too much blue, etc. Oh well.
I believe blue is not a particularly 'ergonomic' color to use for text as the eye's sensitivity for blue near the focus is lower than, e.g., red. FWIW. Regards, Stefan
Stefan Seefeld wrote:
I believe blue is not a particularly 'ergonomic' color to use for text as the eye's sensitivity for blue near the focus is lower than, e.g., red. FWIW. Color-blind people (I'm not color blind, but my brother is) can't see red very well (it looks gray and blurred), but blue is usually fine.
-- With respect, Alex Besogonov (cyberax@elewise.com)
Kevin Wheatley wrote:
[link style] its obvious, but I don't know where I've been - minor.
It does show where you've been. It's just a subtle effect in that regard, and shows differently if you are on IE. The style of underline on the mouse-over is dotted if you've already visited a link (on IE it's dashed and shows up even without the mouse-over). Also for external links, the ones that take you out of the site, the underline is the orange color instead of gray. Stuff I wasn't planning on getting feedback on... But I'll take it :-)
[Logo bar] On my screen I'd like to see the "C++ Libraries" and the general quote stand out more. The sharp area of the image draws too much attention and takes you eye away from the Boost logo.
I'll try and improve the visibility of the "c++ libraries part". Not sure about the quote, it's not easy to bring it out more without making it a distraction.
[main body] It might be nice to surround the page with a little white border perhaps, especially for the main body text. Perhaps aligned with the indented 'welcome' tab. - this is 'worse' on the 'Libraries' page as with my screen width there is a large gap between the 'term' and the 'definition' which if the left edge was indented would be smaller.
Ah, border, long trail of feedback on that from the past :-) If it's just the libraries page that looks off, I'd rather fix that than mess with adding borders. There's a strong aversion to borders for many people and I'm already pushing it with the sidebar.
[footer] should it not have the same styling as the top with a little white surrounding it?
Can't think of a good reason why it has to be the same. Being different it doesn't impart as much significance as the header.
I find it odd that the footer changes size depending on the main body content, it gets quite large on some of the more empty pages.
It's not really changing sizes :-)
It also makes it jump off screen when showing the 'index' tab for instance - minor.
Not sure what you mean by "jump off screen".
[index tab]
This page is just all messed up
It is, and we can leave it at that. It's going to get fixed just hadn't gotten around to it yet. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
It does show where you've been. It's just a subtle effect in that regard, and shows differently if you are on IE. The style of underline on the mouse-over is dotted if you've already visited a link (on IE it's dashed and shows up even without the mouse-over). Also for external links, the ones that take you out of the site, the underline is the orange color instead of gray.
ah, I see that now, but I'm more thinking as I try read a bunch of pages in a list say like the 'license' page... as I click on the various options in the grey box I can't see which I've been to, so when I click on the back button on my mouse I have to guess where I was. If I had a nested example of this and I do a tree walk by hand, I don't want to keep a mental stack of progress so far. I guess it is different to my expectation - does not mean it is wrong of course.
Ah, border, long trail of feedback on that from the past :-) If it's just the libraries page that looks off, I'd rather fix that than mess with adding borders. There's a strong aversion to borders for many people and I'm already pushing it with the sidebar.
my problem is that when reading I like a little space between the edge of the browser/window decoration and the text in the same way I'd expect to see it in a printed page/book (perhaps without the guttering). But there really needs to be something on the libraries page for certain. FYI, my physical screen size means I have something a little larger than an A4 page for the page content, with a 3" border arount left, top and right for 'other stuff' (tool bars, rss feeds, system monitors etc...) the white edge around the page would make it look like an A4 paper floating in the middle of my screen, rather than aligning everything left, with a great gap that appears on the right when your reading the actual documentation becuase the main navigation aid disapears, it would look better to me to be central to the page area.
[footer] should it not have the same styling as the top with a little white surrounding it?
Can't think of a good reason why it has to be the same. Being different it doesn't impart as much significance as the header.
it was a simplicity idea, making the bottom look more like the top in terms of colour selection. I don't think you need to use the image, in fact I think you should not. "The top bar is so Web 2.0" (but with too much drop shadow) the bottom could be if the colour was lighter. (Assuming you would want the site to look like a "Web 2.0 " site :-)
I find it odd that the footer changes size depending on the main body content, it gets quite large on some of the more empty pages.
It's not really changing sizes :-)
well it is a solid box about a 3rd of my visible page area. not a nice view. but if you says its not changinfg sizes it must be some relativity aspect of web browsing that I'm missing... I certainly didn't sit on a mooving train to view them... Talking of changing sizes, the "Get Boost >" messes up when I scale the text size up (so I can read the pages from 3' away - I'm lazy :-)
It also makes it jump off screen when showing the 'index' tab for instance - minor.
Not sure what you mean by "jump off screen".
I guess I'm saying the footer doesn't float at the bottom of the visible page area... thinking it this way, that would be ugly :-) so Ignore me. Thanks Kevin -- | Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this | | Senior Technology | My employer for certain | | And Network Systems Architect | Not even myself |
Kevin Wheatley wrote: Sorry, I didn't get around to addressing some of the issues you raised. Perhaps tomorrow.
"The top bar is so Web 2.0" (but with too much drop shadow) the bottom could be if the colour was lighter. (Assuming you would want the site to look like a "Web 2.0 " site :-)
You know it wasn't until very recently, as in 2 weeks, that I found what Web 2.0 was. This is the type of design I've done for some time. If someone went and labeled a style that's their problem ;-)
Talking of changing sizes, the "Get Boost >" messes up when I scale the text size up (so I can read the pages from 3' away - I'm lazy :-)
How annoying. The one place I used pixel based font sizes to guarantee it doesn't get resized, and it goes and doesn't work :-( Got to love browsers when they ignore specs. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Jim Douglas <jim@dramatec.co.uk> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
I like the link styles, but I hate the picture behind the logo across the top of the page. IMHO it is far too abstract. I preferred the more regular pattern you were using earlier.
That's weird; those are real ice crystals, while the earlier design was an abstract geometrical pattern. Okay, it happened to be sound conditioning foam, but nobody had to know that. Anyway, do you have something against abstraction? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Andy Little
That's weird; those are real ice crystals, while the earlier design was an abstract geometrical pattern.
Ice being an ambient symbol for "The boost attitude" ?
I'm Joking of course :-)
Not "Ice", ICE. :) Regards, Paul Mensonides
Paul Mensonides wrote:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Andy Little
That's weird; those are real ice crystals, while the earlier design was an abstract geometrical pattern. Ice being an ambient symbol for "The boost attitude" ?
I'm Joking of course :-)
Not "Ice", ICE. :)
LOL! Nice :-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Paul Mensonides writes:
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Andy Little
That's weird; those are real ice crystals, while the earlier design was an abstract geometrical pattern.
Ice being an ambient symbol for "The boost attitude" ?
I'm Joking of course :-)
Not "Ice", ICE. :)
Internal Compiler Error? :-) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Steffen, Ph.D. Nowlan's Theory: He who hesitates is not Software Engineer IV only lost, but several miles from the Numerica Corporation next freeway exit. ph (970) 419-8343 x27 fax (970) 223-6797 The shortest distance between two points dgsteffen@numerica.us is under construction. -- Noelie Alito
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Dave Steffen
Ice being an ambient symbol for "The boost attitude" ?
I'm Joking of course :-)
Not "Ice", ICE. :)
Internal Compiler Error? :-)
Yep. Regards, Paul Mensonides
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Rene Rivera | Sent: 14 February 2006 00:43 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] [website] Link styles. | | Rene Rivera wrote: | > After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change | the link style | > of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle | similar to the one | > I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the | style use in | > Wikipedia there are some significant differences. | > | > So floodgates open for comments on this style. I like it - much better. Paul PS BTW Why are there $s around the footnote? revised $Date: 2005/12/31 22:55:23 $ -- Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB Phone and SMS text +44 1539 561830, Mobile and SMS text +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com http://www.hetp.u-net.com/index.html http://www.hetp.u-net.com/Paul%20A%20Bristow%20info.html
Paul A Bristow wrote:
PS BTW Why are there $s around the footnote? revised $Date: 2005/12/31 22:55:23 $
The $Date:$ string gets maintained automatically by the version control system. Regards, m Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle similar to the one I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the style use in Wikipedia there are some significant differences.
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
Oops I forgot to include the link again <http://boost.redshift-software.com/> :-\
Looks good to me! -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
David Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
Rene Rivera wrote:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. It's a tyle similar to the one I use in my blog, and although it is also similar to the style use in Wikipedia there are some significant differences.
So floodgates open for comments on this style. In particular if this is an improvement or not? I'm particularly interested in visibility issues. Are the links visible enough? Do they get in the way of reading? etc.
Oops I forgot to include the link again <http://boost.redshift-software.com/> :-\
Looks good to me!
Minor criticism: what's-with-the-hyphens? It's "reinvention of the wheel", just as you wouldn't write "winner-of-the-best-actor-Oscar". By the way, I think the blue ice crystals look great! Paul
Paul Giaccone wrote:
Minor criticism: what's-with-the-hyphens? It's "reinvention of the wheel", just as you wouldn't write "winner-of-the-best-actor-Oscar".
Which hyphens are you referring to? -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
Paul Giaccone wrote:
Minor criticism: what's-with-the-hyphens? It's "reinvention of the wheel", just as you wouldn't write "winner-of-the-best-actor-Oscar".
Which hyphens are you referring to?
Sorry, I forgot to mention I had followed a link from the front page. See "Why should an organization use Boost?" at http://boost.redshift-software.com/users/ Paul
Rene Rivera <grafik.list <at> redshift-software.com> writes:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. ... I'm particularly interested in visibility issues.
The new style looks good! However, the page behaves a bit strange on my desktop: WinXP/IE6.0. The problem is that the footer "jumps up and down" if I hoover the mouse over various links! If I for example hoover the mouse over the Debian-link and then move the mouse to Downloads link Boost 1.33.1 and back again, the footer will jump up and down. /Tompa PS. I have not tested this on any other machine so maybe its just me...
On 2/14/06, Tompa <tompa1969@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list <at> redshift-software.com> writes:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. ... I'm particularly interested in visibility issues.
The new style looks good! However, the page behaves a bit strange on my desktop: WinXP/IE6.0.
The problem is that the footer "jumps up and down" if I hoover the mouse over various links! If I for example hoover the mouse over the Debian-link and then move the mouse to Downloads link Boost 1.33.1 and back again, the footer will jump up and down.
/Tompa
PS. I have not tested this on any other machine so maybe its just me...
I like the design - but I'll confirm what Tompa saw - the footer jumps up and down when you mouseover links in IE6 (version 6.0.2800.1106C0) - no problem in Firefox (version 1.5.0.1) - both running on Win2kSP4. Stuart Dootson
Tompa wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list <at> redshift-software.com> writes:
After some thought, and complaints from some, I've change the link style of the new design to use colored links. ... I'm particularly interested in visibility issues.
The new style looks good! However, the page behaves a bit strange on my desktop: WinXP/IE6.0.
The problem is that the footer "jumps up and down" if I hoover the mouse over various links! If I for example hoover the mouse over the Debian-link and then move the mouse to Downloads link Boost 1.33.1 and back again, the footer will jump up and down.
Confirmed... IE6 is a real PITA to deal with :-( And the above is not the only problem/bug in regards to IE. I'm hoping that with the advent of IE7 web developers can abandon all the various hacks in this area. I'll try and find a way to fix it. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera wrote:
Tompa wrote:
The problem is that the footer "jumps up and down" if I hoover the mouse over various links! If I for example hoover the mouse over the Debian-link and then move the mouse to Downloads link Boost 1.33.1 and back again, the footer will jump up and down.
I'll try and find a way to fix it.
Fixed. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo
Rene Rivera <grafik.list <at> redshift-software.com> writes:
Fixed.
Verified OK, great! As I said before I think the page and the links looks good. But being a west-ish, I'm used to work from left to right. Hence, I have some difficulties to have a navigation menu, which basically drives the work, at the right side on the page. Of course, I know that this is my personal preference, but since most of you other boost:ers are used to read from left to right, I would like to ask you why you think it is better to start navigate from the right side. What is the rationale behind this? /Tompa
Tompa wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list <at> redshift-software.com> writes:
But being a west-ish, I'm used to work from left to right. Hence, I have some difficulties to have a navigation menu, which basically drives the work, at the right side on the page. Of course, I know that this is my personal preference, but since most of you other boost:ers are used to read from left to right, I would like to ask you why you think it is better to start navigate from the right side. What is the rationale behind this?
IMO, Rene does not need to provide a rationale for it. It is a matter of taste and for that, we should give the designer some freedom -- unless there is a valid rationale for the objection. Hence, I think it is your burden to substantiate your objection. Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
Joel de Guzman wrote:
Tompa wrote:
Of course, I know that this is my personal preference, but since most of you other boost:ers are used to read from left to right, I would like to ask you why you think it is better to start navigate from the right side. What is the rationale behind this?
IMO, Rene does not need to provide a rationale for it. It is a matter of taste and for that, we should give the designer some freedom -- unless there is a valid rationale for the objection. Hence, I think it is your burden to substantiate your objection.
Ergonomic studies have shown that a menu on the RHS is easier to use than on the LHS. The reasons have more to do with being right handed than cultural reading conventions. With early versions of HTML it was difficult to position a fixed width column on the right of the page, but easy if it was on the left. Ergo the navigation menu on the left is simply a relic of the past, and just goes to illustrate how we humans keep on repeating the mistakes of our forefathers :-) Jim
Jim Douglas <jim <at> dramatec.co.uk> writes:
Ergonomic studies have shown that a menu on the RHS is easier to use than on the LHS.
Wow, that is very surprising to me! I could ask for references but I saw Andy's post in this thread which also confirms that RHS is more user-friedly than LHS, and by 5 to 1. Hmm, am I really that odd? ;-) Thansk for the input. /Tompa
-----Original Message----- From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Joel de Guzman
But being a west-ish, I'm used to work from left to right. Hence, I have some difficulties to have a navigation menu, which basically drives the work, at the right side on the page. Of course, I know that this is my personal preference, but since most of you other boost:ers are used to read from left to right, I would like to ask you why you think it is better to start navigate from the right side. What is the rationale behind this?
IMO, Rene does not need to provide a rationale for it. It is a matter of taste and for that, we should give the designer some freedom -- unless there is a valid rationale for the objection. Hence, I think it is your burden to substantiate your objection.
I agree with Joel here. I personally think that far to much weight is given to this type of thing. Rene is the one that is volunteering the time, so he can do it the way that he wants unless the result is bad for very good reasons. Of course, he can also use others' preferences, etc., but ultimately, he should have what he likes unless there is a very strong reason otherwise or a very strong consensus otherwise. For the most part, I think this stuff comes down to personal preferences that have no functional effect or the functional effect is insignificant. Regards, Paul Mensonides
Paul Mensonides wrote:
IMO, Rene does not need to provide a rationale for it. It is a matter of taste and for that, we should give the designer some freedom -- unless there is a valid rationale for the objection. Hence, I think it is your burden to substantiate your objection.
I agree with Joel here. I personally think that far to much weight is given to this type of thing. Rene is the one that is volunteering the time, so he can do it the way that he wants unless the result is bad for very good reasons. Of course, he can also use others' preferences, etc., but ultimately, he should have what he likes unless there is a very strong reason otherwise or a very strong consensus otherwise. For the most part, I think this stuff comes down to personal preferences that have no functional effect or the functional effect is insignificant.
I agree. Also, despite being left handed I prefer the menu on the right. This is because the menu can disrupt the text flow on the right and I can always look at the same (approximate) point on the left to see the left-aligned text (the ragged right principle). I can also choose to ignore the menus while reading the main text. - Reece
"Tompa" wrote
But being a west-ish, I'm used to work from left to right. Hence, I have some difficulties to have a navigation menu, which basically drives the work, at the right side on the page. Of course, I know that this is my personal preference, but since most of you other boost:ers are used to read from left to right, I would like to ask you why you think it is better to start navigate from the right side. What is the rationale behind this?
FWIW I set up a poll on my website regarding this and on the site its possible to change side menus to the preferred side: http://www.servocomm.freeserve.co.uk/ See the "Advanced" link on top of main menu. (Preferred side is stored in a cookie). You'll have to poke about the site to find pages with menus (try e.g from top menu --- > Windpower --> Links), but they should change side dependent on which you want. Feedback so far (5 years? .. 5 favour rhs to 1 lhs). Personally I am right handed and I find it most convenient to move mouse up and down rhs of screen where scroll bars are and round to menus at the top in a natural arc. With menus on the left you are cutting across what you are reading from scroll bars to link buttons. Possibly File, Edit. etc and other frequently used menu buttons are better placed on rhs in Windows application too, but its a bit late to change default now I guess. regards Andy Little
participants (19)
-
Alex Besogonov -
Andy Little -
Dave Steffen -
David Abrahams -
Jeff Garland -
Jim Douglas -
Joel de Guzman -
Joel de Guzman -
Kevin Wheatley -
Martin Wille -
Paul A Bristow -
Paul Giaccone -
Paul Mensonides -
Peter Dimov -
Reece Dunn -
Rene Rivera -
Stefan Seefeld -
Stuart Dootson -
Tompa