Updated website design

Message

dyqik · Post by **dyqik** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:12 am

Is the new website design supposed to look like this?

This is on Konqueror 3.3.2.
It looks like the old version in firefox.

[/url]

30726 · Post by **30726** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:15 am

I believe so. All they did was increse the size of the fonts and some other minor cosmetic changes.

cato` · Post by **cato`** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:19 am

No, the ad-"table" on the right inst that fat here with firefox.

Sebbe · Post by **Sebbe** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:25 am

For me it looks like this with Firefox and standard font size set to 16.

StinkingMonkey · Post by **StinkingMonkey** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:35 am

sigh, looks disgusting on my browser now :/. Surely if people are having problems reading certain sites then they should learn how to configure their browser rather than having webmasters alter the size of the font being used, thus affecting the people who have configured their browser to use a comfortable viewing font size on all sites, now im forced to view one site with extraordinary sized font. Fair enough a 'few' people have complained but surely that should have invoked a poll of some sort to test everyones opinion.

blue.sca · Post by **blue.sca** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:02 am

why does mine look like this?
and why is it now html 4.01 trans? was it not earlier xhtml 1.1 strict?

//e great, the display was a cache problem, now it is at least acceptable.

Sven Vermeulen · Post by **Sven Vermeulen** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:22 am

The default font size was first set to 1em (which means to use the font size that the user's browser has requested), but apparently too many users do not want to set their own preferred size, they rather have each site decrease it with about 20%

Anyway, I've decreased the font size again to 0.8em. But that's not really a good thing as it again forces visitors who have configured their browser as they want to increase the font size.

My browser gives a default of 14pt. I've also forced the font-size of each site that I visit to be at least 14pt because just too many sites are broken otherwise.

Site looks like this here.

If you have problems, please use bugzilla so we can find out what needs to be fixed. Easier to know now than to have a cascade of bugreports when we introduce the entire redesign (you know, the contest of last year).

weirdo · Post by **weirdo** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 11:29 am

One thing. The color for the text in the left menu blends to much withe the background.

Weirdo

Mongrol · Post by **Mongrol** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:14 pm

Hmm, the fonts are a lot smaller on my system for some reason.

risa2000 · Post by **risa2000** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 7:13 pm

Cosmetic? Not for me. The perfect font size has changed to this. Note the size difference between leftband menu and the actual page text. This is on Windows XP SP2 + Firefox 1.0.2. I remember I had problems on my gentoo box, until I put Microsoft Verdana fonts into Xorg and made it default font family. Since then it worked like charm. I presume "few" who complained were facing the same problems and did not have Microsoft original at hand.
The current solution however looks terrible

Apache4857 · Post by **Apache4857** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:16 pm

risa2000 wrote:Cosmetic? Not for me. The perfect font size has changed to this. Note the size difference between leftband menu and the actual page text. This is on Windows XP SP2 + Firefox 1.0.2. I remember I had problems on my gentoo box, until I put Microsoft Verdana fonts into Xorg and made it default font family. Since then it worked like charm. I presume "few" who complained were facing the same problems and did not have Microsoft original at hand.
The current solution however looks terrible

Just do a shift+reload and the site will look correct.

BT

risa2000 · Post by **risa2000** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 8:40 pm

Apache4857 wrote:
risa2000 wrote:Cosmetic? Not for me. The perfect font size has changed to this. Note the size difference between leftband menu and the actual page text. This is on Windows XP SP2 + Firefox 1.0.2. I remember I had problems on my gentoo box, until I put Microsoft Verdana fonts into Xorg and made it default font family. Since then it worked like charm. I presume "few" who complained were facing the same problems and did not have Microsoft original at hand.
The current solution however looks terrible
Just do a shift+reload and the site will look correct.

BT

Good!! Now I wonder, what did I miss?

gentoo_lan · Post by **gentoo_lan** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:02 pm

The site looks nice. Excellent work.

bladdo · Post by **bladdo** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:28 pm

Lol they all look so different

risa2000 · Post by **risa2000** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 10:06 pm

Hmm, even after "shift+reload" it does not look as good as it was before with Verdana fonts.

kalestic · Post by **kalestic** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:32 pm

For me it looks like http://bllaze.ath.cx/images/gentoo.org.png

Shelbie · Post by **Shelbie** » Sun Apr 10, 2005 11:49 pm

The Gentoo website looks shocking now!! It looked fine the way it was so why change it? If there indeed was a problem for some people, surely there must be a better way to fix that problem then to increase the font size for everyone. Looking at the replies I am not the only one objecting the font size increase. There doesn't seem to be any spacing before the newsitems and the left menu either. I also have to disagree that people should press "shift+reload" or anything to see a website display properly.
What actually happened with the new website design? The poll has finished ages ago so surely the new website should be finished soon otherwise we might need a new poll

Coulnd't the font problem some people had be addressed in the new design rather then messing up the current site?

EDIT: At work on my windows machine it looks awfull as well.

sjokki · Post by **sjokki** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 12:08 am

http://69.64.49.238/~sjokki/shots/gentoo.png

Maybe don't change the size of fonts. Then the browser will use it's default font-size.

30726 · Post by **30726** » Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:33 am

When will the design that won the redesign contest be applied?

Suicidal · Post by **Suicidal** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 8:44 am

tln wrote:When will the design that won the redesign contest be applied?

amen

Earthwings · Post by **Earthwings** » Sat Apr 16, 2005 9:19 am

See here and this note in swifts blog.

yngwin · Post by **yngwin** » Mon Apr 18, 2005 8:22 am

blue.sca wrote:and why is it now html 4.01 trans? was it not earlier xhtml 1.1 strict?

There's no such thing as xhtml 1.1 strict...
You can have xhtml 1.1, but then you also must use the application/xhtml+xml mime-type, which is not supported by IE and gives the yellow 'screen of death' on compliant browsers if there's any mistake that causes the code not to be well-formed. So why not use html 4.01?

terwey · Post by **terwey** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:03 am

yngwin wrote:
blue.sca wrote:and why is it now html 4.01 trans? was it not earlier xhtml 1.1 strict?
There's no such thing as xhtml 1.1 strict...
You can have xhtml 1.1, but then you also must use the application/xhtml+xml mime-type, which is not supported by IE and gives the yellow 'screen of death' on compliant browsers if there's any mistake that causes the code not to be well-formed. So why not use html 4.01?

if they use XHTML the code is more strict, atleast if they use XHTML Strict or 1.1 though. And sites in "proper" XHTML are far more accesable with Lynx or Links2 etc.

blue.sca · Post by **blue.sca** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 7:54 am

yngwin wrote:So why not use html 4.01?

because i do the rules on my webpage... if there is any problem with your browser viewing my page (and my page is valid xhtml), then change your browser...

yngwin · Post by **yngwin** » Tue Apr 19, 2005 12:17 pm

terwey wrote:
yngwin wrote:So why not use html 4.01?
if they use XHTML the code is more strict, atleast if they use XHTML Strict or 1.1 though. And sites in "proper" XHTML are far more accesable with Lynx or Links2 etc.

That is pure nonsense. XHTML 1.0 is the same as HTML 4.01, except for a few extra XML rules. Read the specification, guys! (I know it's boring...) This is exactly what I call the XHTML myth. You can write very standards-compliant, accessible, semantic code in HTML. And if you want you can still make unaccessible table-based layouts in XHTML...

I know what I'm talking about. If you read my blog you will find a number of articles on this issue. Note that my blog still is XHTML 1.1 served with the right mime-type (and HTML for those ancient browsers that do not support XHTML). But I increasingly do not see the need for XHTML, with all the issues that brings along. On sites I make for my clients I use HTML 4.01 Strict accordingly.

And BTW, are you sure that Lynx knows how to handle real XHTML (that is, served with the application/xhtml+xml mime-type)?

Updated website design

Updated website design

Just refresh

Re: Just refresh