-----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. Thanks! Tim -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iFYEARELAAYFAlRFy/oACgkQLaxZSoRZrGGT7wDeNKBbdx2myQs6vNQnKw+jsDR/ WflFY03xW8WFNgDcDt/LEyYscndB1VfsjEm+nZDX1+r5bvBRw4FyFQ== =VidF -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----