Jeff Garland wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:33:59 +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote

...

Here's another one, wikipedia inspired.

http://luabind.sourceforge.net/boost2.png

This is very nice as well.

Yes it is nice... But again it's easy to copy a design. That doesn't make it a Boost design. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq

Deane Yang wrote:

For the record, I also agree with Dave. The latest proposals from Rene have too many distracting colors in them.

Which colors exactly? -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq

Deane Yang <deane_yang@yahoo.com> writes:

Rene Rivera wrote:

...

Deane Yang wrote:

...

For the record, I also agree with Dave. The latest proposals from Rene have too many distracting colors in them. Which colors exactly?

In addition to the blue (which I like), I see purple, green, and brown. Way too many for my taste.

Yeah, and too bright I think.

I also don't understand the point of the icons. Since they're on the right and their meaning is not immediately obvious, they don't actually help me locate anything on the page.

Otherwise, the page looks OK. But the wikipedia design is much easier on my eyes.

ditto. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com

Jeff Garland wrote:

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:33:59 +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote

...

Here's another one, wikipedia inspired.

http://luabind.sourceforge.net/boost2.png

This is very nice as well. I assume the right pane size increases with the browser window? Hard to tell with a png :-)

I have created a version of this style available at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/ I also have a stripped-down version at: http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost.html These use a common "core" stylesheet with colours and extra styling specified in the custom stylesheet. At the moment, I have boost.css (the stripped down version) and wiki.css (the wiki-style version). Both versions scale well. NOTE: I would have put these stylesheets in the same HTML to allow you to switch layouts, but IE inherits the styles in all linked stylesheets, whereas Firefox treats them as distinct styles. This makes it hard to judge browser differences. Regards, Reece

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 22:07:17 +0000, Reece Dunn <msclrhd@hotmail.com> wrote:

I have created a version of this style available at:

http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/

This doesn't work so well if you have a small default fontsize set in your browser, the body overlaps the logo. See screen shot at http://www.compsoc.man.ac.uk/~cow/tmp/snapshot1.png jon -- "I find television very educating. Every time somebody turns on the set, I go into the other room and read a book." - Groucho Marx

Reece Dunn wrote:

I have created a version of this style available at:

http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/

I also have a stripped-down version at:

http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost.html

Not bad. But any chance you could change the link text color to a darker shade of blue (like the one used by wikipedia.org)? The lighter shade of blue is hard on my eyes. I think I have the same complaint for the new boost documentation style. And I know that it's not cool to underline the links, but I also like the way that it makes the link text stand out (again, see wikipedia.org). If it were me, I'd just copy the wikipedia style lock, stock, and barrel, but that's because I seem to have less graphics design skills than everybody else on this list (which is really depressing, since I also have less C++ programming skills). It's clear to me that the look of wikipedia.org was designed by someone who really knows what she/he is doing. With all due respect, as good as some of the efforts submitted so far have been, I don't think any of them meet the same high standards for readability and aesthetics. (But I would like to see Wallin's design in the flesh and not just as a PNG.) Of course, there might be other well-designed sites whose style is worth copying.

Reece Dunn wrote:

I have made the text darker.

...

And I know that it's not cool to underline the links, but I also like the way that it makes the link text stand out (again, see wikipedia.org).

Done.

I have also updated the Google search facility. You can take a look at:

http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/boost2.html

Thanks! But now things get beyond my ability to explain what's going on. When I compare this to wikipedia.org, the latter is still easier on my eyes. I'll leave the explanation to the more perceptive, but one factor appears to be the line spacing. Minor quibble: The headings "Participation" and "Latest News" are indented. I would prefer them aligned with the main header.

Reece Dunn wrote:

Jeff Garland wrote:

...

On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 11:33:59 +0100, Daniel Wallin wrote

...

Here's another one, wikipedia inspired.

http://luabind.sourceforge.net/boost2.png

This is very nice as well. I assume the right pane size increases with the browser window? Hard to tell with a png :-)

I have created a version of this style available at:

http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/

Nice! -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net

Caleb Epstein wrote:

Several individuals (Rene, Reece, Daniel et al) have proposed bold and interesting designs, all (?) of which use CSS-based layout. It seems like it ought to be possible to have a Boost home page where the layout was selectable. Along the lines of:

http://www.csszengarden.com/

http://www.mezzoblue.com/zengarden/alldesigns/official/

This is some pretty amazing stuff. Beautiful, minimally intrusive, web design. There are some "angry fruit salads" as well, but overall its amazing what can be done with pure CSS.

The default style is clearly the one that most people will look at all of the time, so it should be carefully chosen and designed, but it should be simple for users to change the appearance of the site if they so desire.

It is possible to add multiple named link/stylesheets in a HTML document, so it is possible to switch layout. There are a few drawbacks to this: * Mozilla handles the multiple CSS by treating them as distinct style groupings and allows you to switch between them (this is what you want :)). However, IE behaviour is to apply the stylings for *all* the stylesheets in the order they are given, which means that the resulting style is a mix and match affair. * There isn't a clean way to persist a users style choice when viewing the homepage several times and across different pages (if we translate the style over to other pages). The way that csszengarden works is to use "?cssfile=" in the URL and process that (via some sort of scripting mechanism).

Should we be boiling down some of this discussion to the "Elements of Style" and how they should be laid out?

I don't know. Maybe we could come up with several good designs (standard, wiki, etc.) I am moving in this direction, having separated out the common styling into a boost-core.css file that I am importing in both boost.css (standard) and wiki.css (wiki-style). It is easy to add more to that list. Regards, Reece

On Mon, Nov 22, 2004 at 11:47:09AM -0600, Rene Rivera wrote:

Jonathan Wakely wrote:

...

Can we see that version online, not as a PNG? It might look awful in my browser!

Just go to.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indus_Valley_Civilization ..for example.

Is that the same? Wikipedia in my browser (mozilla 1.4) looks quite different from Daniel's PNG. No stripey background, different colour list bullets, and a few other differences. No matter though, if it's mostly similar to that I've got the picture. Thanks jon -- "When a true genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

Rene Rivera wrote:

This will be my last set of tweaks for a while... Other things to do.

http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm

- Colors are down to three, including the link color and background. But excluding the images which we have no control over.

- Redesign of the search section into a search box at the top right of the page.

- No icons.

...and to all a good night :-)

Nice. (I would still prefer a darker blue for the links)

Agreed: nice layout, but I would prefer to see a darker blue for links. Perhaps just keep to the browser's default color? I like the little ">>" glyph as well. -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:32:52 -0600, Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:

I did darken the links, but at some point they are going to become black, and disappear into the text. So, with that in mind.. Would it be preferable to just make the links black, and have some icon on them to indicate they are links?

With a layout thats basically black-on-white, I'd strongly suggest not specifying any link color at all. Just use the browser defaults. I think that link colors should only be overridden when there is an overarching color scheme which deviates sufficiently far from "black on white" that the change is required for visibility. Having a small "this is a link" glyph isn't a bad visual cue either, though its not all that common and may irk some folks. -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 10:56:47 -0600, Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> wrote:

PS. Forgot this.. It's never going to be possible to use the browser's default color. It's different for each person, your default is different from my default :-)

Right, but they are the defaults we (or our browser vendors) have selected to look best on the widest variety of web pages, most of which are black-on-white or close to it. -- Caleb Epstein caleb dot epstein at gmail dot com

David Abrahams wrote:

...

Nice. (I would still prefer a darker blue for the links)

If it were any darker it would look exactly like regular black text on my screen. It's only barely perceptible to me now.

I'm probably using the wrong adjective with "darker". And I hate to sound like a broken record, but I compare every attempt directly against www.wikipedia.org. The shade of blue used in wikipedia.org (or is it my browser?) is just right for me. Of course, wikipedia.org also underlines the links.

Deane Yang wrote:

David Abrahams wrote:

...

...

Nice. (I would still prefer a darker blue for the links)

If it were any darker it would look exactly like regular black text on my screen. It's only barely perceptible to me now.

I'm probably using the wrong adjective with "darker".

Yes. I think you mean "more contrast". There are other ways to improve contrast without changing the luminance. It's a problem with visual perception that's hard to deal with, and with much research behind it. As an example here's a quick color study comparison of the wiki link color and my current link color... http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/color.htm The wiki color is on the left, mine on the right. The first three rows are the pure color. The second three are the luminance of the colors only. Both have the text in white and the opposing color. This helps show differences, and more importantly similarities, in the brightness and contrast of the colors. (this is a common way of typeset comparison) As you can see the wiki color has slightly more contrast on the white. But it has less contrast when only the luminance is considered. One common cause for this is the color bleeding that happens on monitors. For others the experience will vary, including laptop LCD users which are likely to see either no difference or significant difference between the two depending on how the LCD does a "floor" or "ceiling" on the colors.

And I hate to sound like a broken record, but I compare every attempt directly against www.wikipedia.org. The shade of blue used in wikipedia.org (or is it my browser?)

It's wikipedia... and your graphics card.. and your gamma curve.. and your monitor, LCD, plasma, or projection. My suggestion, for you and others, is to download the above page and play with the colors yourself to see how it looks on your display. And tell everyone of your experience :-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq

You know way more about this than I do. And if I'm the only one who finds wikipedia's links easier to read, then obviously my views should be ignored. How about the line spacing? Rene Rivera wrote:

Yes. I think you mean "more contrast". There are other ways to improve contrast without changing the luminance. It's a problem with visual perception that's hard to deal with, and with much research behind it. As an example here's a quick color study comparison of the wiki link color and my current link color...

http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/color.htm

The wiki color is on the left, mine on the right. The first three rows are the pure color. The second three are the luminance of the colors only. Both have the text in white and the opposing color. This helps show differences, and more importantly similarities, in the brightness and contrast of the colors. (this is a common way of typeset comparison)

As you can see the wiki color has slightly more contrast on the white. But it has less contrast when only the luminance is considered. One common cause for this is the color bleeding that happens on monitors. For others the experience will vary, including laptop LCD users which are likely to see either no difference or significant difference between the two depending on how the LCD does a "floor" or "ceiling" on the colors.

...

And I hate to sound like a broken record, but I compare every attempt directly against www.wikipedia.org. The shade of blue used in wikipedia.org (or is it my browser?)

It's wikipedia... and your graphics card.. and your gamma curve.. and your monitor, LCD, plasma, or projection.

My suggestion, for you and others, is to download the above page and play with the colors yourself to see how it looks on your display. And tell everyone of your experience :-)

Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:

This will be my last set of tweaks for a while... Other things to do.

http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm

You are showing more restraint than I can muster!

- Colors are down to three, including the link color and background. But excluding the images which we have no control over.

I like it! A lot! Link color contrast is just barely too subtle for me to notice easily when embedded in regular text. But others may feel differently.

- Redesign of the search section into a search box at the top right of the page.

My only real complaint with the page is that the search box is too dense. Going to one line labels for the radio buttons would be a big help. You could change the text on the labels to "this site" and "mailing lists." True, lists.boost.org doesn't host all our lists :(.

- No icons.

It works just fine that way.

...and to all a good night :-)

Sleep well. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com

David Abrahams wrote:

[...] My only real complaint with the page is that the search box is too dense. Going to one line labels for the radio buttons would be a big help.

...

icons as much as everyone else, but that may just be me. The design is very clean and elegant, but I agree that slightly more contrast for the links could be an improvement. I also agree that one-liners for the search buttons might be better. Or, to steal Reece's style, perhaps a drop-down would be more scalable? Also, I don't like the gray background. When I see a textbox with a gray background, I think "disabled control". Actually, any color other

I like the latest design very much! I guess I'm not a fan of the than white on the background tells me "something funky about this textbox". But maybe that's from too much Windoze development. Also, a minor nit is the difference between "Boost (Developers)" and "Files (members only)". In the first one, the parenthesized text is part of the link, and in the second one, it is not. Other than that, I'd have to say that this is my favorite version so far. It doesn't look like it's ripping off the WikiNNNN, it loads quickly, and it looks very professional. I guess my random comments about the icons are that at first, with all the logos flying around, I thought they were supposed to be half-+'s, which is part of why I didn't like them so much. But if they are supposed to evoke stream operators, I would probably like them more if they were not quite so fat. Despite all that, good work!! Dave

Rene Rivera wrote:

David B. Held wrote:

...

I guess my random comments about the icons are that at first, with all the logos flying around, I thought they were supposed to be half-+'s, which is part of why I didn't like them so much. But if they are supposed to evoke stream operators, I would probably like them more if they were not quite so fat. Despite all that, good work!!

They are meant to look like the stream ops. I did a minor adjustment which hopefully makes it more obvious.

Also changes to the link color, and to the search "box".

...

where Boost is widely archived, but also being able to search the docs. Unfortunately, I'm not volunteering to write that functionality at this time. ;)

And I figured out a way to provide a search limited to "/libs". Which has the effect of searching only the docs.

http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm

Nice! BTW, I was twidling with the font-size yesterday. I am aware that you are using font-size: 90%; I did too initially, but now what I found what works very well is font-size: smaller; To see the (slight) difference, you can check out: http://tinyurl.com/6nphf for example. Notice the slight difference in size. Notice too the improved line-spacing. This, I guess, is the reason why someone (Deane?) observed that the wikipedia pages have better line-spacing. And I agree. << BTW, to those who are hesitant to have us tweaking the sizes, these are *relative* sizes. You still have control over them by tweaking your browser. >> Regards, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net

Joel <joel@boost-consulting.com> writes:

check out: http://tinyurl.com/6nphf for example.

Wow, beautiful logo, Joel! How did you come up with that? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com

Both web designs are starting to look pretty good to me. I'll just make a few comments. Rene Rivera wrote:

http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm

Rene's has a more distinctive look, using the ">>". The links still look a little washed out on my laptop LCD screen. It should be noted that the links look fine on my CRT screen at home. Reece Dunn wrote:

Also, for comparison, I have revised my pages to use font-size: smaller;. Here is the link:

http://uk.geocities.com/msclrhd/boost/

I like the Simple one best, but Wiki v1 and v2 look pretty good, too. None of the pages have the bigger line spacing that wikipedia has and that I would prefer. But I do consider this a rather minor complaint. I want to thank the web page designers, especially Reece and Rene, for working so hard on this and actually taking my views into account.

"David B. Held" <dheld@codelogicconsulting.com> writes:

Rene Rivera wrote:

...

[...] They are meant to look like the stream ops. I did a minor adjustment which hopefully makes it more obvious.

It does, but only because I know what they are supposed to be now. ;)

...

[...] And I figured out a way to provide a search limited to "/libs". Which has the effect of searching only the docs. [...]

That's great!!

Yeah! But we should label the search "library documentation" or something. I'm afraid that it doesn't include the BoostBook generated docs, though (?) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com

Rene Rivera wrote:

Forgot about those.. OK, figured out a way to include those.

And a few other changes. Like a more reliable way to set the overall font size. So that it doesn't look small in one browser and not small enough in another. Also, line spacing seems better now because of that.

http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm

Enjoy.

I am enjoying it. This looks very readable to me now. Thanks again for working so hard on this design.

David B. Held wrote:

Rene Rivera wrote:

...

[...] Is "Documentation" better? I'm afraid anything longer and the search box will need to be bigger to accommodate it. [...] Forgot about those.. OK, figured out a way to include those.

And a few other changes. Like a more reliable way to set the overall font size. So that it doesn't look small in one browser and not small enough in another. Also, line spacing seems better now because of that. [...]

<mr. burns, twiddling fingers> Exxxxxcelleeeeent.... </>

:-) And here's more... * I made light spacing changes as suggested by Mark. * Added ability to specify the CSS to use in the page ala http://www.csszengarden.com/ - But entirely in Javascript. For example: http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm?cssfile=more/boost_none... http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm?cssfile=http://uk.geoci... -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com - 102708583/icq

Rene Rivera wrote:

* Added ability to specify the CSS to use in the page ala http://www.csszengarden.com/ - But entirely in Javascript. For example:

I notice that this one doesn't respond to requests to change the font size. How rude! Can that capability be reinstated? -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com

Rene Rivera wrote:

David Abrahams wrote:

...

Rene Rivera wrote:

...

* Added ability to specify the CSS to use in the page ala http://www.csszengarden.com/ - But entirely in Javascript. For example:

I notice that this one doesn't respond to requests to change the font size. How rude! Can that capability be reinstated?

It was never gone :-\ Or at least it works for me when I do ctrl+/ctrl- in Firefox. Which browser? And how are you changing the font?

IE6, View > Text Size > Larger -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com