Yes, it looks very "professional". But the blue stripes on each side
of the page take way too much space. Perhaps my browser window is
larger than that of the person who designed the web?
I say "professional" because it is that sort of good looking slick
design that uses pixel alignement. It is probably the type of design
that appeals to managers and computer illiterate people. If it happens
that they can see it on their screens because they got a "normal"
screen.
Not that pixels are the root of all evil in web design, just almost
all. Such web is not scalable, it is the same size (in pixels)
irregardless of the user's screen (window) size and dpi.
This is the standard these days, many web sites do it. And some do
not. The fact that many did the same error is not an excuse for doing
it again.
I appreciate the work you put into the new design. But it looks like I
will not be the one who appreciates the results of the work. I was
afraid the new design will be like this, and so it is.
Thanks
Michal
···
On 5/24/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On May 23, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Douglas Livingstone wrote:
That's the custom-built CMS running on the ruby-lang.org server and
serving up content we made or imported. Yes, there are holes, but we
are working to fill them in.
James Edward Gray II
P.S. I need volunteers who can generate needed content for the new
site. If you are interested, email me off-list.
This site is in a CMS, so it is trivial to replace the entire look of the site, should we need to down the road. Let's try to keep the focus where it belongs, on content and getting it launched.
James Edward Gray II
···
On May 26, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
Yes, it looks very "professional". But the blue stripes on each side
of the page take way too much space. Perhaps my browser window is
larger than that of the person who designed the web?
I say "professional" because it is that sort of good looking slick
design that uses pixel alignement. It is probably the type of design
that appeals to managers and computer illiterate people. If it happens
that they can see it on their screens because they got a "normal"
screen.
Not that pixels are the root of all evil in web design, just almost
all. Such web is not scalable, it is the same size (in pixels)
irregardless of the user's screen (window) size and dpi.
This is the standard these days, many web sites do it. And some do
not. The fact that many did the same error is not an excuse for doing
it again.
I appreciate the work you put into the new design. But it looks like I
will not be the one who appreciates the results of the work. I was
afraid the new design will be like this, and so it is.
I think it looks great! Any reason we haven't switched yet?
I think setting the fixed size is a good idea. Seen too many felxable
sites where text gets illegibly overlapped because the layout is
dynamic and doesn't have the room it expects/needs.
Not that pixels are the root of all evil in web design, just almost
all. Such web is not scalable, it is the same size (in pixels)
irregardless of the user's screen (window) size and dpi.
This is the standard these days, many web sites do it. And some do
not. The fact that many did the same error is not an excuse for doing
it again.
In my recent dealings with visual design people, I understand the problem with scalable sites is that you don't know what you're line length is going to be anymore. Which makes visual paragraph flow hard to dictate. Hence the fixed widths. If that offers any consolation.
But the new site looks very nice, I think. Fixed width is a necessary evil until something better than HTML/CSS2 comes along.
···
On May 26, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 5/24/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On May 23, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Douglas Livingstone wrote:
Are there going to be any new features to the site?
Will it have any new integrated wikis?
···
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 23:42 +0900, James Edward Gray II wrote:
On May 26, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Yes, it looks very "professional". But the blue stripes on each side
> of the page take way too much space. Perhaps my browser window is
> larger than that of the person who designed the web?
>
> I say "professional" because it is that sort of good looking slick
> design that uses pixel alignement. It is probably the type of design
> that appeals to managers and computer illiterate people. If it happens
> that they can see it on their screens because they got a "normal"
> screen.
> Not that pixels are the root of all evil in web design, just almost
> all. Such web is not scalable, it is the same size (in pixels)
> irregardless of the user's screen (window) size and dpi.
>
> This is the standard these days, many web sites do it. And some do
> not. The fact that many did the same error is not an excuse for doing
> it again.
>
> I appreciate the work you put into the new design. But it looks like I
> will not be the one who appreciates the results of the work. I was
> afraid the new design will be like this, and so it is.
This site is in a CMS, so it is trivial to replace the entire look of
the site, should we need to down the road. Let's try to keep the
focus where it belongs, on content and getting it launched.
>>
>> http://new.ruby-lang.org/
...
> Not that pixels are the root of all evil in web design, just almost
> all. Such web is not scalable, it is the same size (in pixels)
> irregardless of the user's screen (window) size and dpi.
>
> This is the standard these days, many web sites do it. And some do
> not. The fact that many did the same error is not an excuse for doing
> it again.
In my recent dealings with visual design people, I understand the
problem with scalable sites is that you don't know what you're line
length is going to be anymore. Which makes visual paragraph flow
hard to dictate. Hence the fixed widths. If that offers any
consolation.
That is a mistake of the visual design people. You do not know the
line length anyway.
First, you do not hand-adjust the paragraph layout for every piece of
content on the site.
Second, even if you do, the person who displays the site may get a
different font with different width, or render the site with a
different sized font so that it is easily readable. If you disallow
font scaling (specify the font sizes in pixels) you should get
generally similar layout unless the used font happens to have very
different relative width. Even then most browsers would allow changing
the font size anyway. If they do not (like IE) the site either
displays in huge letters on low-dpi screens or is unreadable on
high-dpi screens.
Just a while ago we bought new displays for a few people here. They
happened to be high-dpi, and our web site was unreadable on them. And
our visual experts said it is not their priority. That much for visual
experts
But the new site looks very nice, I think. Fixed width is a
necessary evil until something better than HTML/CSS2 comes along.
Yes, it looks very nice. And if you know nothing about web design and
happen to have a "normal" screen you would not suspect a thing.
Thanks
Michal
···
On 5/26/06, Mat Schaffer <schapht@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 26, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> On 5/24/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
>> On May 23, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Douglas Livingstone wrote:
yes, I would like a new site as well. And the modifications to the
stylesheet to make better use of screen space should be trivial.
Is there a todo list somewhere where I could look if I felt like
having too much free time?
Thanks
Michal
···
On 5/26/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
On May 26, 2006, at 9:37 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> Yes, it looks very "professional". But the blue stripes on each side
> of the page take way too much space. Perhaps my browser window is
> larger than that of the person who designed the web?
>
> I say "professional" because it is that sort of good looking slick
> design that uses pixel alignement. It is probably the type of design
> that appeals to managers and computer illiterate people. If it happens
> that they can see it on their screens because they got a "normal"
> screen.
> Not that pixels are the root of all evil in web design, just almost
> all. Such web is not scalable, it is the same size (in pixels)
> irregardless of the user's screen (window) size and dpi.
>
> This is the standard these days, many web sites do it. And some do
> not. The fact that many did the same error is not an excuse for doing
> it again.
>
> I appreciate the work you put into the new design. But it looks like I
> will not be the one who appreciates the results of the work. I was
> afraid the new design will be like this, and so it is.
This site is in a CMS, so it is trivial to replace the entire look of
the site, should we need to down the road. Let's try to keep the
focus where it belongs, on content and getting it launched.
The fact that you can get a dynamic-sized web page wrong does not mean
such pages should not be done. To extend it a bit, just because there
are too many bad web sites I would not give up on the idea of creating
a web site.
Thanks
Michal
···
On 5/26/06, Chris <hulachr@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think it looks great! Any reason we haven't switched yet?
I think setting the fixed size is a good idea. Seen too many felxable
sites where text gets illegibly overlapped because the layout is
dynamic and doesn't have the room it expects/needs.
Not sure to whom(?) to mention this, but when I view that site with images
turned off (my preference) it is very difficult to read (dark text on a dark
background). Works OK with images turned on.
My guess is that the background is an image?
Can the site be made so that it defaults to a light background if images are
off?
Randy Kramer
···
On Saturday 27 May 2006 10:20 am, Michal Suchanek wrote:
On 5/26/06, Mat Schaffer <schapht@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 26, 2006, at 10:37 AM, Michal Suchanek wrote:
> > On 5/24/06, James Edward Gray II <james@grayproductions.net> wrote:
> >> On May 23, 2006, at 4:46 PM, Douglas Livingstone wrote:
> >>
> >> http://new.ruby-lang.org/
Not sure to whom(?) to mention this, but when I view that site with images
turned off (my preference) it is very difficult to read (dark text on a dark
background). Works OK with images turned on.
My guess is that the background is an image?
Can the site be made so that it defaults to a light background if images are
off?
_why's try ruby website (http://tryruby.hobix.com/) is very nice for two
reasons: it allows anyone to see what the fuss is about without wasting time
installing Ruby (which is a bit off-putting for all of us lazy people) and
it allows anyone sitting at a computer without Ruby on it to do quick Ruby
things.
On the new ruby-lang website, can you please put a link to it ? Perhaps the
twenty minute tutorial link can be replaced (since _why's site has a
built-in tutorial) or this can be added as "Web-based irb for when the
computer owner is evil and doesn't let you install Ruby" (or some better
description) or both.
W e should definitely include a link to tryruby. That app has equipped me to
convince several of my friends who wouldn't touch ruby with a ten foot pole
(if it meant downloading it) to actually sit down and give it a spin. I even
managed to get a friend who isn't into programming to try it out.
I also thought I should take a moment to comment on the Greeter code
sample. I remember commenting on the concept when the redesign was first
being considered, and I still think a prominent code sample is essential.
But I am reconsidering whether that specific code sample is worthy of being
the very first snippet of ruby code many people will see. When I am
examining a new language, the very first thing I do is try to find sample
code. Oftentimes, that sample code is a "Hello World" program. Some
potential rubyists might mistakenly assume that the sample is an
illustration of how a terse "Hello World" program should be in ruby. Maybe
we can use some other samples, including a standard, terse "Hello World".
Here are two 'sample examples':
#hello world
puts "Hello world"
#add a method to an existing class
class Fixnum
def double
self * 2
end
end
A great big thanks to all of those who have worked on the new ruby site. It
really is beautiful~
Best,
Jared Nuzzolillo
···
On 5/28/06, C Erler <erlercw@gmail.com> wrote:
_why's try ruby website (http://tryruby.hobix.com/\) is very nice for two
reasons: it allows anyone to see what the fuss is about without wasting
time
installing Ruby (which is a bit off-putting for all of us lazy people) and
it allows anyone sitting at a computer without Ruby on it to do quick Ruby
things.
On the new ruby-lang website, can you please put a link to it ? Perhaps
the
twenty minute tutorial link can be replaced (since _why's site has a
built-in tutorial) or this can be added as "Web-based irb for when the
computer owner is evil and doesn't let you install Ruby" (or some better
description) or both.
