On Mon, 20 Oct 2014 21:59:07 -0500 "Timothy Pearson" <kb9vqf@...> wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA224 > > > 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 > > OK, thanks for the info. Alexandre, do you see a problem with making the > headers non-underlined and non-italic? The color differences set them > apart well enough for me. > > Also, while I haven't had time to evaluate a proper overhaul of the patch > pages I have at least modified the backend so as to allow pagination. > Patches are now available by default in 100-patch lists, starting with the > newest. Everything else currently functions the same as before. > > E. Liddell, now that the patches page is a little easier to work with, can > you send me an example of what the aforementioned css-driven table should > look like? I can implement the changes quickly on this end. I'll look at it over the next day or two. E. Liddell