Gentoo Archives: www-redesign

From: "Christopher Bergström" <cbergstrom@×××××××××.com>
To: www-redesign@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [www-redesign] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 15:45:03
Message-Id: 43848DA7.6060903@netsyncro.com
In Reply to: [www-redesign] Update of http://wwwredesign.gentoo.org by Curtis Napier
Curtis Napier wrote:

> Aarons design uses a smaller default font, that is not acceptable from > an accessibility POV. The main font is at 1em and all cursory fonts > multipliers of 1em. The main font will remain at 1em which is the > standard for the accessibility guidelines. If you don't like the > standard font size every single graphical browser offers a font zoom > capability, use it.
I just asked we don't set the font size in px..
> > The site is not XHTML it is HTML-4.01 Transitional and it passes the > w3c validator. Manually overriding HTML-4.01 Transitional in the w3c > validator is not required and any errors that it reports if you do > this will not be addressed. If you can come up with a good technical > reason why doing this would benefit anyone I will address it. > > Navigation and useability studies are beyond my scope. These issues > should have been addressed a year ago.
There always has to be a point in software were we lock on features.. Hopefully we look at this sometime in the future. It's my understanding that xhtml is a finer grained standard and will become more so in the future.. Allowing for a right once and preview the same across browsers approach.. Thus not having to "worry" so much if the site previews the same across any platform. It will save time for everyone later.. (only mentioning)
> > The left hand navigation column is dead. No amount of beating this > dead horse will resurrect it. The jumppads will remain at the bottom > and appear on all non-documentation pages so that those links are > accessible as much as possible.
I only recommended kicking a small portion of the bottom jump pads to the right side above the ads. Allowing for navigation bar and menu to be closer together.. (imho not important)
> > The CSS is only 12k. Why would shaving 4k off of it to make it 8k make > a difference to anyone?
Loads, parses and renders faster... After the need for editing is done.. I think simply removing white space might accomplish this..
> > The site is dynamically generated with XSL/XML all the pages end in > .xml. There are no plans to change it to .xhtml now or in the future.
I have to look at this logically.. So we are intentionally rendering HTML 4? HTML docs being such usually end it .html file extension.. Unless there are some changes then should be just .html files.. OR update the code to be xhtml compliant and leave as .xml.. This doesn't really matter, but it's semantics.. It's like renaming a bzImage to Kernel.dll In the end.. Looks better and thanks for the great work Cheers, C. -- www-redesign@g.o mailing list