On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 18:35:29 -0500 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA224 > > > On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 17:32:53 -0400 > > "E. Liddell" <ejlddll@...> wrote: > > > >> On Sun, 19 Oct 2014 21:10:41 -0500 > >> "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...> wrote: > >> > >> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> > Hash: SHA224 > >> > > >> > > > >> > >> > Hi, > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Visually, I have no problem with either using the provided false > >> > >> shadow or the CSS3 one. What it does > >> > >> >when it is displayed in Konq-error? Does it make Konq go crazy or > >> it is > >> > >> just not shown. > >> > >> > >> > >> Konqueror just ignores the style instruction, because it's limited > >> to > >> > >> CSS2. > >> > >> So the screenshot appears with no shadow (and a little bit of extra > >> > >> whitespace > >> > >> below it). In other words, it's harmless and downgrades > >> gracefully. > >> > >> > >> > >> E. Liddell > >> > >> > >> > > > >> > > Hi, > >> > > > >> > > Well, it's okay for me to have the CSS3 shadow if it is harmless for > >> > > Konqueror. These little adjustments improves a lot the website and I > >> think > >> > > that these changes are ready to go to production. What do you think? > >> > > > >> > > Thank you! > >> > > -Alexandre > >> > > > >> > > >> > OK, let's go with the CSS3 shadow and get opinions from others on the > >> list > >> > regarding this design. If the consensus is that the new site is > >> better > >> > then we'll put it into production. > >> > >> There may be a problem with the stylesheet on screens where the main > >> text area is shorter than the sidebar. I'm trying to figure out a fix. > > > > Never mind, found a fix, although I'm not entirely happy with it. > > The revised site style is now on webdev, for those who have access. > > Tim, due to the rearrangement of the page's geometry, your "donate!" > > link has shifted out of place. I'll fix that later. > > > > E. Liddell > > Looks good overall, however I prefer the non-italicised header links. Was > there any previous discussion on that UI element? If not, what is the > rationale behind italicizing those links? I personally have a hard time > determining they are links instead of noninteractive headers when they are > italicized. The sequence went something like this, IIRC: A few emails back, Alexandre asked that I underline the headers, because he didn't think they were sufficiently differentiated. I didn't want to underline them because I was afraid it would suggest that the other links weren't links, if you see what I mean, so I italicized them instead. It was all mixed in with the discussion about the drop shadow. E. Liddell