about site styling in re usability

[Felix Miata]

On 2012-12-05 11:39 (GMT-0500) Ryan composed:

> Felix Miata wrote:

>> http://docs.fedoraproject.org/
>> 1-JS required. Why? Documentation is boring text, more necessary than
>> wanted. A static Table of Contents is offered as substitute for JS
>> behavior, but has no clickable links to any actual documentation.
>> Obviously JS can enhance, but to serve up no useful information
>> without it?

>> 2-Boldly states "welcome", yet creates unwelcome feeling via
>> preponderance of
>> mousetype[1], as demonstrated by:
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=657934
>> It makes me unhappy and want hit the back button, not welcome, and not
>> wanting to face the dig for the instruction I need. I'm hardly alone
>> on this
>> issue.[2]

>> http://boot.fedoraproject.org/faq
>> Personality altered from docs via use of gray text of similar size to
>> further
>> reduce legibility.
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=657935

>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ
>> The difference here is the even less legible list of tiny pale blue links
>> overwhelming the viewport, even smaller text in the main subject area
>> than
>> the navigation wrap.
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=657936

>> Is there a compelling reason Fedora can't be a leader in web site
>> friendliness as well as distro compilation? Am I the only one involved
>> in the project who thinks following the lead of most of the rest of
>> the web is rude[3]?

>> [1] http://hermeticpress.blogspot.com/2009/04/mouse-type.html
>> [2] http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
>> [3] http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/rudeweb.html

> So to sum it up, the default font sizes of some of the fedora websites
> is too small, and some are too lightly coloured?

That's an easy conclusion to draw, and accurate, but it misses the point, 
which is the philosophy of the styling rather than particular styling details.

> Would it also be possible to get the bugs that those attached
> screenshots are from?

All the same place (filed 2 years ago):
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638726

The newer Bugzilla software used by Mozilla.org includes the bug number as an 
element of the URL of the attachment once the attachment is actually opened. 
If the current version of the Bugzilla software used by Redhat wasn't 
misconfigured to prevent opening image attachments in the browser used to 
open the bug, the attachment URL could be appended with &action=edit, 
resulting in seeing the applicable bug number.

>  Additionally, those screenshots are quite busy,

It's busy purposely, to provide context necessary to evaluate the reason for 
the problem as much as the problem itself. People often use the term "too 
big" or "too small" without providing any way to sense why such language was 
used. The view is of a whole desktop, including familiar reference objects, 
with the specimen to be evaluated at its center.

> and i find it very hard to parse the information on them. Is what you
> are running there basically a tool that assesses the font sizes of
> websites?

It's only a tool in the sense that I use a template to load a specimen URL 
into a frame in order to provide sizing context. The URLs in the images can 
be loaded in any evaluator's browser to compare in a personal desktop context.

> Finally, the best way to help out with making the fedora websites
> better is to help out the websites team! The follwoing link gives you
> all the details on how to join and help out!

> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites

I explained why in comment 13 in the bug hosting the screenshots that that 
hasn't and likely won't happen in the sense I get from your suggestion.
-- 
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

  Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks!

Felix Miata  ***  http://fm.no-ip.com/