[website] Oh the fun..
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-) Yes, both the front and history page are updated. http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html Enjoy. -- -- 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
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-)
Yes, both the front and history page are updated.
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html
Great. I only don't like these underlined links, why not colored text that underlines only when pointed to. Or at least make the underline closer to the text, so that it crosses bottoms of letters like g or j. cheers, Marcin Kalicinski
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Kaliciñski | Sent: 15 April 2005 23:59 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] Re: [website] Oh the fun.. | | > | > http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm | > http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html | | Great. I only don't like these underlined links, Ditto I like this a lot. I can have it wide for overviewing quickly without too much up/down scrolling, but set the text narrower for easier reading. I like the ragged right layout - it really doesn help reading IMO. I DO like the underlining, but perhaps the font for links is not bold/big enough? It looks a bit too similar to the text font? Paul Paul A Bristow Prizet Farmhouse, Kendal, Cumbria UK LA8 8AB +44 1539 561830 +44 7714 330204 mailto: pbristow@hetp.u-net.com
From: "Paul A Bristow" <pbristow@hetp.u-net.com>
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Marcin Kaliciñski | Sent: 15 April 2005 23:59 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] Re: [website] Oh the fun.. | | > | > http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm | > http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html | | Great. I only don't like these underlined links,
I DO like the underlining, but perhaps the font for links is not bold/big enough? It looks a bit too similar to the text font?
The underlines as of now appear very much like the navbar grouping lines. That is, they appear to be sectioning the text rather than marking what may be links. What about using a faint highlighting (background color) in the main text at least? With most any distinct marking, once you recognize that something is a link, you can find the rest. The problem is finding something that looks enough like a link to attract the pointer. Can you allow the browser's normal link underlining be the style used when the pointer hovers over a link? That is, instead of creating your own link look when hovering, let the links look "normal" when hovering. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
"Marcin Kaliciñski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> writes:
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-)
Yes, both the front and history page are updated.
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html
Great.
I agree!
I only don't like these underlined links,
I sort of agree here, too. It's not bad, just a little uncomfortable.
why not colored text that underlines only when pointed to.
I think that might be a little better. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
At Wednesday 2005-04-27 06:27, you wrote:
"Marcin Kaliciñski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> writes:
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-)
Yes, both the front and history page are updated.
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html
Great.
I agree!
I only don't like these underlined links,
I sort of agree here, too. It's not bad, just a little uncomfortable.
How about we do NOTHING to the links and let the user decide how s/he wishes to view them? IIRC every browser has a mechanism (user choosable) for displaying links. Are we so arrogant we presume to know better than the user what they should look like?
why not colored text that underlines only when pointed to.
I think that might be a little better.
I say: "Leave it up to the user!!"
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"
Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
At Wednesday 2005-04-27 06:27, you wrote:
"Marcin Kaliciñski" <kalita@poczta.onet.pl> writes:
why not colored text that underlines only when pointed to.
I think that might be a little better.
I say: "Leave it up to the user!!"
You can't. As soon as you specify a background color for a page you have to also specify every other color in the page. Anything less and you can't guarantee that everyone will be able to see the page. -- -- 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
In article <4260449B.5050306@redshift-software.com>, Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-)
Yes, both the front and history page are updated.
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html
My brain parses "text in a box on the right" as "ad" and ignores it. I literally spent minutes reading this page before even realizing there is content on the right even though I had looked at a previous version. Maybe my brain is weird, and I certainly have no idea how you might work around this behavior of my brain, but I wanted to mention it in case I am not the only one. I think some combination of: non-white background in right sidebar, no shadows around boxes, and only horizontal borders in sidebar might help to make the sidebar parse less like ads and more like a sidebar hth
Miro Jurisic <macdev@meeroh.org> writes:
In article <4260449B.5050306@redshift-software.com>, Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-)
Yes, both the front and history page are updated.
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html
My brain parses "text in a box on the right" as "ad" and ignores it. I literally spent minutes reading this page before even realizing there is content on the right even though I had looked at a previous version.
Hmm, yeah: it doesn't jump out at you as being the site index. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-)
Yes, both the front and history page are updated.
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html
Generally, I like it. The arrows for "search" look rather similar to the arrows used next to the headings, so it doesn't really highlight that this is a button. When displayed with images disabled in Mozilla Firefox, the "Google" and "powered" text overlap, and the search "button" overlaps with the drop down list. Also, the "search" button doesn't look or behave like any other link on the page. Actually, without images, the links in the navigation panels are not highlighted in any way. Whilst we're on "search", "Documentation" doesn't fit in the drop-down text box in Firefox. Finally, there are plenty of cases where attribute values start with an open quote followed by a line break. Better would be to have the line break before the quote. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Software Developer
Anthony Williams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
[...]
When displayed with images disabled in Mozilla Firefox, the "Google" and "powered" text overlap, and the search "button" overlaps with the drop down list.
Can't really do anything about this, sorry.
Also, the "search" button doesn't look or behave like any other link on the page.
That would be because it's not a link. It's a button.
Actually, without images, the links in the navigation panels are not highlighted in any way.
1. Your mouse pointer changes shape. 2. The underline on the individual navigation panels highlights.
Whilst we're on "search", "Documentation" doesn't fit in the drop-down text box in Firefox.
It fits for me. Did you change font sizes and not reload? (It's a know Firefox bug)
Finally, there are plenty of cases where attribute values start with an open quote followed by a line break. Better would be to have the line break before the quote.
That would be HTMLTidy doing that. -- -- 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
Rene Rivera wrote:
I've made a variety of changes to incorporate the variety of concerns people had. There are problem that I likely did not fix. And of course your browser mileage may vary. I'm not going to mention what the changes are. They should either be obvious, and I'd rather not influence perceptions :-)
Yes, both the front and history page are updated.
http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/more/version_history.html
I think this layout makes unreasonable assumptions about the browser window width, and looks terrible when viewed in a slightly less wide browser window. Here's an example screenshot: http://www.xs4all.nl/~weegen/ss.png Note that this does not just affect people who use 800x600 or smaller resolutions. It also affects people who don't maximize their browser window to fill the entire screen. For example, people (like me) who use tiled window managers often split their screen up into two equal-sized side-by-side windows (each containing one application such as a browser). Personally I find it extremely annoying when websites make me scroll horizontally for no good reason (this is especially the case on the version_history page). As for the links, I agree with Victor; changing link formatting is yet another symptom of overly eager webdesigners' trying to control every last pixel on the screen because their precious design "depends" on it, while breaking usability for users who use a less common configuration. The website should just provide structured content and leave it up to the user's browser and preferences to do the final formatting. Eelis
Eelis van der Weegen wrote:
I think this layout makes unreasonable assumptions about the browser
Unreasonable for whom?
window width, and looks terrible when viewed in a slightly less wide browser window.
Here's an example screenshot: http://www.xs4all.nl/~weegen/ss.png
Note that this does not just affect people who use 800x600 or smaller resolutions.
1. That screenshot is less than 800 pixels wide. 2. I think just about all web designers agree that 800x600 is the minimum one should design for at this time. 3. When I do the usual web designer test of resizing to 800x600 there is no horizontal scrolling needed. Like this one: http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/snapshot-1.png
It also affects people who don't maximize their browser window to fill the entire screen.
I don't maximize the browser, actually I don't maximize any window. But then again I have a 3200x1200 desktop :-)
For example, people (like me) who use tiled window managers often split their screen up into two equal-sized side-by-side windows (each containing one application such as a browser). Personally I find it extremely annoying when websites make me scroll horizontally for no good reason (this is especially the case on the version_history page).
I find that annoying also.. But one has to make compromises when given conflicting requests. It was not my intent to put the same width restriction on the history page. So that's a bug.
As for the links, I agree with Victor; changing link formatting is yet another symptom of overly eager webdesigners' trying to control every last pixel on the screen because their precious design "depends" on it, while breaking usability for users who use a less common configuration.
As I said in the other post.. It's not. It's just not a possibility to accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost completely. The best we can hope for is to design in enough flexibility to make the majority of users happy.
The website should just provide structured content and leave it up to the user's browser and preferences to do the final formatting.
That's a nice dream.. And with the current arrangement you can attain it. The current design is entirely CSS based. Which means that you can turn it off, or use your own design. -- Of course that's assuming your browser will let you. -- -- 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
At Wednesday 2005-04-27 19:36, Rene Rivera wrote: [deleted...not because it's irrelevant, it's NOT, but because it would obscure what I find myself compelled to say]
As for the links, I agree with Victor; changing link formatting is yet another symptom of overly eager webdesigners' trying to control every last pixel on the screen because their precious design "depends" on it, while breaking usability for users who use a less common configuration.
As I said in the other post.. It's not. It's just not a possibility to accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost completely. The best we can hope for is to design in enough flexibility to make the majority of users happy.
In this case "majority of the users happy" won't cut it. You're entirely ignoring many of the visually impaired and that's unacceptable. There's a _reason_ that browsers allow users to display things in differing manners. so pick one of the following 1) I don't give a damn about the visually impaired (very unlikely) 2) I do, but not enough to do anything "extra" because of them (probably unlikely also) 3) I didn't even _think_ about the visually impaired in regard to this (most likely) I could go on and on about how programming is one of the few well paying jobs that visually impaired people can do quite well (normally because they can control how things look on their system), but I'll stop here other than to say: "Arbitrarily knowingly making thing difficult for a segment of the population is anathema to me, and it should be to all of us." So, now you know, and answer 3 is no longer valid. One of the guiding principles given at my 1st programming job (39 years ago) was that we were to make simple things simple, and all things possible (obviously, to the best of our ability). Making the boost webpage inaccessible without jumping through hoops, doesn't qualify, IMO.
The website should just provide structured content and leave it up to the user's browser and preferences to do the final formatting.
That's a nice dream.. And with the current arrangement you can attain it. The current design is entirely CSS based. Which means that you can turn it off, or use your own design. -- Of course that's assuming your browser will let you.
-- -- 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 _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com The five most dangerous words in the English language: "There oughta be a law"
Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
At Wednesday 2005-04-27 19:36, Rene Rivera wrote:
[deleted...not because it's irrelevant, it's NOT, but because it would obscure what I find myself compelled to say]
You tend to have an interesting urge to say things ;-)
As I said in the other post.. It's not. It's just not a possibility to accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost completely. The best we can hope for is to design in enough flexibility to make the majority of users happy.
In this case "majority of the users happy" won't cut it. You're entirely ignoring many of the visually impaired and that's unacceptable. There's a _reason_ that browsers allow users to display things in differing manners. so pick one of the following
1) I don't give a damn about the visually impaired (very unlikely) 2) I do, but not enough to do anything "extra" because of them (probably unlikely also) 3) I didn't even _think_ about the visually impaired in regard to this (most likely)
Interesting how you _assumed_ that I did *not* pick a fourth option of: 4) I though about the visually impaired a great deal and took additional steps to make sure that they have a variety of avenues for reading the page.. 4.a) I made sure the page followed a good reading structure so that if a blind person is using a reader device the page will read cohesively. 4.b) I made sure that tab order navigation was correct so that not only the visually impaired, but the dexterity impaired can navigate without problems. 4.c) I stayed away from using HTML structural elements, like tables, for visual layout as that would intrude in the ability for the impaired to change the way the page looks. 4.d) I tested the page as it would look and function in text only mode. 4.e) I tested the page as it would look and function if all the colors and images are overridden with user settings. 4.f) I tested the page with some of the WAI accessibility test harnesses available. 4.g) I tested the page at various zoom levels to make sure it was still functional. ..and more.. So the question is did _you_ care enough about the impaired to check the functionality of the page for the visually impaired before you posted your reply? [cut, not because it's not interesting, but because it's not really relevant]
Making the boost webpage inaccessible without jumping through hoops, doesn't qualify, IMO.
Did you investigate what hoops a visually impaired person would need to use? Are you so sure that there are hoops? Are you sure that it's not the same hoops they already use to browse the rest of the web, and hence are no longer hoops? -- -- 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
At Thursday 2005-04-28 08:06, you wrote:
>Victor A. Wagner Jr. wrote:
>>At Wednesday 2005-04-27 19:36, Rene Rivera wrote:
>>[deleted...not because it's irrelevant, it's NOT, but because it would
>>obscure what I find myself compelled to say]
>
>You tend to have an interesting urge to say things ;-)
>
>>>As I said in the other post.. It's not. It's just not a possibility to
>>>accommodate user level settings without also abandoning design almost
>>>completely. The best we can hope for is to design in enough flexibility
>>>to make the majority of users happy.
>>In this case "majority of the users happy" won't cut it.
>>You're entirely ignoring many of the visually impaired and that's
>>unacceptable.
>>There's a _reason_ that browsers allow users to display things in
>>differing manners. so pick one of the following
>>1) I don't give a damn about the visually impaired (very unlikely)
>>2) I do, but not enough to do anything "extra" because of them (probably
>>unlikely also)
>>3) I didn't even _think_ about the visually impaired in regard to this
>>(most likely)
>
>Interesting how you _assumed_ that I did *not* pick a fourth option of:
>
>4) I though about the visually impaired a great deal and took additional
>steps to make sure that they have a variety of avenues for reading the page..
>4.a) I made sure the page followed a good reading structure so that if
>a blind person is using a reader device the page will read cohesively.
>4.b) I made sure that tab order navigation was correct so that not only
>the visually impaired, but the dexterity impaired can navigate without
>problems.
>4.c) I stayed away from using HTML structural elements, like tables, for
>visual layout as that would intrude in the ability for the impaired to
>change the way the page looks.
>4.d) I tested the page as it would look and function in text only mode.
>4.e) I tested the page as it would look and function if all the colors and
>images are overridden with user settings.
>4.f) I tested the page with some of the WAI accessibility test harnesses
>available.
>4.g) I tested the page at various zoom levels to make sure it was still
>functional.
>...and more..
>
>So the question is did _you_ care enough about the impaired to check the
>functionality of the page for the visually impaired before you posted your
>reply?
>
>[cut, not because it's not interesting, but because it's not really relevant]
>
>>Making the boost webpage inaccessible without jumping through hoops,
>>doesn't qualify, IMO.
>
>Did you investigate what hoops a visually impaired person would need to
>use? Are you so sure that there are hoops? Are you sure that it's not the
>same hoops they already use to browse the rest of the web, and hence are
>no longer hoops?
Nope. I, fortunately, am _not_ vision impaired (the motor vehicle
department feels differently and insists I were glasses while I drive) and
have worked with a few who are over the years. I was relaying (in much
milder language) a conversation (monolog) I had with one of them a few (3?)
years back and changing the way links looked was one of his pet
peeves. Our web designers (the company product was primarily web-based
access to our data) had him and the other visually impaired employees
review any changes. We've both since gone our separate ways, I haven't
seen him since about a month after we both got laid off and lost track of
him after we moved.
>--
>-- 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
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
Victor A. Wagner Jr. http://rudbek.com
The five most dangerous words in the English language:
"There oughta be a law"
participants (9)
-
Anthony Williams -
David Abrahams -
Eelis van der Weegen -
Marcin Kalici�ski -
Miro Jurisic -
Paul A Bristow -
Rene Rivera -
Rob Stewart -
Victor A. Wagner Jr.