11:44 p.m.
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
--
"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/
10:34 a.m.
Hi Felix!
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 00:44 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
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]?
Hey, it seems you're pretty passionate about checking font sizes on
websites! Would I be correct in guessing you've got some HTML & CSS
chops to fix these kinds of issues? If so, I warmly invite you to join
the Fedora websites team so you can help fix the type of issues you've
identified.
Here's the process to get started:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Websites/ShowUs
~m
3:23 p.m.
On 2012-12-05 11:34 (GMT-0500) Máirín Duffy composed:
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 00:44 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> 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]?
Hey, it seems you're pretty passionate about checking font sizes
on
websites! Would I be correct in guessing you've got some HTML & CSS
chops to fix these kinds of issues?
As explained in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638726#c13 a
complete fix would require more time than I can offer. As inferred in comment
0 in the bug, the following would address the root problem:
--- fedora1.css 2012-12-05 15:03:49.000000000 -0500
+++ fedora.css 2012-12-05 16:15:14.000000000 -0500
@@ -11,7 +11,7 @@
body
{
- font-size: 76%;
+ font-size: 100%;
background: #FFFFFF url(../images/border-left.png) 0 0 repeat-y;
}
--
"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/
10:39 a.m.
On Wed 05 Dec 2012 12:44:43 AM EST, 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?
Would it also be possible to get the bugs that those attached
screenshots are from? Additionally, those screenshots are quite busy,
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?
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
cheers,
ryanlerch
3:23 p.m.
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!
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/
5:02 p.m.
On 12/05/2012 04:23 PM, Felix Miata wrote:
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.
What do you mean exactly by " the philosophy of the styling" ? If you
are implying that the current design was specifically created and
implemented to be "rude", this is not the case. Sure, the font sizes and
colours may need to be tweaked to improve legibility and readability,
but there is *not* a premeditated philosophy that was injected into the
current designs exist just to annoy or alienate a subset of users.
In the updated version of the "Top 10 Mistakes in Web Design" by Jakub
Neilen [1], (not the nearly 8 year old 2005 version referenced earlier),
his main recommendation for font size is to allow the user to resize the
text. To the best of my knowledge, all fedora websites work well when
zooming text (Control + "+" in most web browsers).
Personally, while I do not consider most of the web as "rude", there are
web services that I use that are not to my personal preferences. In
these cases, I use the tools available in modern web browsers (such as
"Stylish" for user-defined stylesheets) to change them to my liking.
The reason why Fedora and the Free and Open Source world is different is
that you can help out and improve the websites of our community
yourself. As you said, it is not a trivial task, as there are many
different fedora tools with many different themes, but every little bit
counts!
Maybe -- with your contributions -- we could make our little bit of the
web a little less "rude" in your eyes.
regards,
ryanlerch
[1] - http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html
6:36 p.m.
On 2012-12-05 18:02 (GMT-0500) Ryan composed:
What do you mean exactly by " the philosophy of the
styling" ? If you
Is there a statement of purpose for the site, or any guidelines on achieving
desired ends? Do accessibility, usability or friendliness matter? I haven't
looked, as the absence of the latter strongly discourages my use of the site.
chicken < > egg
are implying that the current design was specifically created and
implemented to be "rude",
I wasn't.
this is not the case. Sure, the font sizes and
colours may need to be tweaked to improve legibility and readability,
but there is *not* a premeditated philosophy that was injected into the
current designs exist just to annoy or alienate a subset of users.
Maybe the results aren't the result of action or inaction specifically for
such a purpose, but the results nevertheless are what they are.
In the updated version of the "Top 10 Mistakes in Web
Design" by Jakub
Neilen [1], (not the nearly 8 year old 2005 version referenced earlier),
his main recommendation for font size is to allow the user to resize the
text. To the best of my knowledge, all fedora websites work well when
zooming text (Control + "+" in most web browsers).
It's not clear to me whether you think the elder
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/9605.html
or the newer
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
or another I may be forgetting may be the more important. What I see from
Nielsen's pages are only incidental consequences from projects he's been paid
for. That age might suggest any particular subject revisit might be desirable
doesn't invalidate the content purely due to its age. I suggest #1 on the
latter URL is probably now more appropriate than ever after 7 more years of
average display density increases.
It pretty much goes without saying that text should be _re_-sizable. In only
one antique and very broken very old web browser falling deep into disuse is
text not always re-sizable. Every modern browser provides one or more methods
of re-sizing text, just as all provide some means of personalizing the
initial (default) size of unstyled text, the latter of which constitutes
resizing in advance. No CSS can prevent it.
The problem is re-sizing itself and what it actually means. I already
"re"-sized my browser's default when I changed it from its shipped size to
the size I prefer. Why should any web site overrule the decision I made,
inducing me to react by _re_-sizing yet again? The reaction is a defensive
action. Defensive actions are unnecessary in the absence of offensive
actions. The offense here WRT text is CSS that imputes one of two things to
the visitor, either:
1-You've made a bad decision in selecting your default size. We shall correct
your mistake.
or
2-We care none what your default size selection is. It shall instead be as we
determine.
Items A, B, & C at the beginning of http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/rudeweb.html
show methods that correspond to #1, while its D corresponds to #2. Rude
becomes apt descriptor from offensive styling causing defensive reactions
typically referred to as text "re"-sizing.
Personally, while I do not consider most of the web as
"rude", there are
web services that I use that are not to my personal preferences. In
these cases, I use the tools available in modern web browsers (such as
"Stylish" for user-defined stylesheets) to change them to my liking.
Again, such are defensive actions induced by offensive conditions. Better
that you wouldn't need to appropriate your time for Stylish or other tools in
reaction to unlikable conditions.
Maybe -- with your contributions -- we could make our little bit of
the
web a little less "rude" in your eyes.
Each of us has our own strengths, weaknesses and committable resource pools,
and have to decide where they are best put to use. Getting into the trenches
of CSS coding of a major site with no apparent policy on the subject is not a
best use for mine for the foreseeable future. What I'm doing here is a
byproduct of better allocations elsewhere. My hope is to induce a leadership
role in friendlier and thus better web styling practices.
--
"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/
10:07 a.m.
On Wed, 2012-12-05 at 19:36 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012-12-05 18:02 (GMT-0500) Ryan composed:
> What do you mean exactly by " the philosophy of the styling" ? If you
Is there a statement of purpose for the site, or any guidelines on achieving
desired ends? Do accessibility, usability or friendliness matter? I haven't
looked, as the absence of the latter strongly discourages my use of the site.
It appears you would rather spent what appears to be hours ranting on
mailing lists then helping us out with useful patches. That's fine. A
little disappointing, but it's okay. We'll still be here if you change
your mind.
~m
10:34 a.m.
On 2012-12-06 11:07 (GMT-0500) Máirín Duffy composed:
It appears you would rather spent what appears to be hours ranting
on
mailing lists then helping us out with useful patches. That's fine. A
little disappointing, but it's okay. We'll still be here if you change
your mind.
I guess you missed the chicken and egg point. The site is difficult to use in
its current state. I get aggravated by that difficulty constantly on sites
I'm forced to use. I'm strongly disinclined to further the aggravation on
sites I'm not forced to use. Mailing list posts are always comfortably
legible, as is mail composition.
You also missed the point about the difficulty imposed by the volume of the
project's CSS. It's complexity puts the job out of my reach.
--
"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/
11:35 a.m.
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 11:34 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
I guess you missed the chicken and egg point. The site is difficult
to use in
its current state. I get aggravated by that difficulty constantly on sites
I'm forced to use. I'm strongly disinclined to further the aggravation on
sites I'm not forced to use.
If your personal goal is to make the web more legible, that seems like a
serious handicap in actually helping.
Mailing list posts are always comfortably
legible, as is mail composition.
Just because what you're writing is legible doesn't mean it has any
value or makes any sense, nor does it mean it's not a total waste of
time to read.
~m
1:10 p.m.
On 2012-12-06 12:35 (GMT-0500) Máirín Duffy composed:
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 11:34 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> I guess you missed the chicken and egg point. The site is
difficult to use in
> its current state. I get aggravated by that difficulty constantly on sites
> I'm forced to use. I'm strongly disinclined to further the aggravation on
> sites I'm not forced to use.
If your personal goal is to make the web more legible, that seems
like a
serious handicap in actually helping.
There are different ways of "actually helping". Handicaps are precisely the
problem, particularly the totally needless _artificial_ handicaps created by
common web site styling. One way of helping is reporting they exist to those
who may be empowered to remove them, which isn't so hard as getting anyone
with the power to acknowledge anything should be done about them.
--
"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/
1:27 p.m.
On Thu 06 Dec 2012 02:10:20 PM EST, Felix Miata wrote:
On 2012-12-06 12:35 (GMT-0500) Máirín Duffy composed:
> On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 11:34 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
>> I guess you missed the chicken and egg point. The site is difficult
>> to use in
>> its current state. I get aggravated by that difficulty constantly on
>> sites
>> I'm forced to use. I'm strongly disinclined to further the
>> aggravation on
>> sites I'm not forced to use.
> If your personal goal is to make the web more legible, that seems like a
> serious handicap in actually helping.
There are different ways of "actually helping". Handicaps are
precisely the problem, particularly the totally needless _artificial_
handicaps created by common web site styling. One way of helping is
reporting they exist to those who may be empowered to remove them,
which isn't so hard as getting anyone with the power to acknowledge
anything should be done about them.
The point is, around here, you have the power to do something about it!
regards,
ryanlerch
2:49 p.m.
On 2012-12-06 14:27 (GMT-0500) Ryan composed:
The point is, around here, you have the power to do something about
it!
Only in theory. My power to actually utilize it is severely handicapped.
--
"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/
1:31 p.m.
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 14:10 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
There are different ways of "actually helping". Handicaps
are precisely the
problem, particularly the totally needless _artificial_ handicaps created by
common web site styling. One way of helping is reporting they exist to those
who may be empowered to remove them,
You have been so empowered, yet claim you don't have the time / patience
to do the fixing.
In case I didn't already make it clear, flooding lists with emails and
arguments is *not* helpful. Stepping up and providing actually useful
patches *is* helpful.
which isn't so hard as getting anyone
with the power to acknowledge anything should be done about them.
You have a serious handicap on that front as well; why should I be
sympathetic to your bug reports and your rants after you've dragged my
name through the mud on Fedora test list when you know next to nothing
about me?
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
You would be wise to follow that advice.
~m
2:45 p.m.
On 2012-12-06 14:31 (GMT-0500) Máirín Duffy composed:
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 14:10 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
> There are different ways of "actually helping".
Handicaps are precisely the
> problem, particularly the totally needless _artificial_ handicaps created by
> common web site styling. One way of helping is reporting they exist to those
> who may be empowered to remove them,
You have been so empowered, yet claim you don't have the time /
patience
to do the fixing.
You say I'm empowered, but that's only a theory. Just for the
http://boot.fedoraproject.org/faq http://docs.fedoraproject.org/ &
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ pages that I screenshot for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638726 I found over 110kb in 13
files. I'm not a programmer. I don't know JS. It's all too weighty and
complex for me, even if I had 100+ hours to devote to it, and without even
considering whatever of the project's CSS files I didn't look for. Even
without those obstacles, I'd still need a five times bigger display I don't
have room or money for to work with how it's styled to start with. I'd also
need at least one handheld device to test with, except that for me they're
useless because everything about them is too tiny. And even if I could get
past all of that, I've found no and no one's offered any policy statement
that says how to judge whether my work might be acceptable to those
responsible for policy decisions.
--
"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/
3:07 p.m.
On 6 December 2012 13:45, Felix Miata <mrmazda(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
You say I'm empowered, but that's only a theory. Just for the
http://boot.fedoraproject.org/faq http://docs.fedoraproject.org/ &
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FAQ pages that I screenshot for
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=638726 I found over 110kb in 13
files. I'm not a programmer. I don't know JS. It's all too weighty and
complex for me, even if I had 100+ hours to devote to it, and without even
considering whatever of the project's CSS files I didn't look for. Even
without those obstacles, I'd still need a five times bigger display I don't
have room or money for to work with how it's styled to start with. I'd also
need at least one handheld device to test with, except that for me they're
useless because everything about them is too tiny. And even if I could get
past all of that, I've found no and no one's offered any policy statement
that says how to judge whether my work might be acceptable to those
responsible for policy decisions.
No you don't.. . All you needed to do was the following:
1) Post an email asking people about the status of your ticket.
2) Point out that the easy fix for this was to change the font-size
from 70% to 100% but you don't know how that will affect other parts
on things you don't have like large monitors or hand-held devices.
Tada.. many emails and time saved.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"Don't derail a useful feature for the 99% because you're not in it."
Linus Torvalds
"Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh
so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I
recommend pleasant. You may quote me." —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd
7:51 p.m.
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 14:07 -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
No you don't.. . All you needed to do was the following:
1) Post an email asking people about the status of your ticket.
2) Point out that the easy fix for this was to change the font-size
from 70% to 100% but you don't know how that will affect other parts
on things you don't have like large monitors or hand-held devices.
That one-line patch doesn't actually fix any of the problems Felix
cited, nor is it really all that productive. There are probably 10 or
more apps that use fedora.css that would be negatively impacted by that
change, and I don't think he understands why that line is in there.
The point of cascading style sheets is that they *cascade.* We have one
main style sheet to share common branding elements and styling that many
different applications inherit from, then we have more specific
stylesheets for various cases, either specific to a particular
application or specific to a type of display or widget or framework in
use (e.g., 960.css is the base 960 grid system framework which we use
for our layout, http://960.gs.) Having a hierarchy of stylesheets like
this is how most professional sites arrange their CSS and is a standard
industry practice. It is also how CSS was meant to be used; it's
cascading style sheet*s* not cascading style sheet.
A good primer on how to work with CSS is Eric Meyer's O'Reilly CSS book.
It has an aqua green stripe and has a picture of salmon on the front. If
anybody wants to help contribute to Fedora's websites by helping us with
our CSS and needs to build some CSS skills, going through that book
would be an excellent start. If you can't afford the book, any CSS
tutorials on alistapart.com that were published in the past 4-5 years
are probably a good bet as well.
~m
1:59 p.m.
On 2012-12-06 20:51 (GMT-0500) Máirín Duffy composed:
That one-line patch doesn't actually fix any of the problems
Felix
cited, nor is it really all that productive. There are probably 10 or
more apps that use fedora.css that would be negatively impacted by that
change,
Clearly that one line change would fall far short of enough, necessitating
other changes down the cascade; but it's the foundation of fixing a huge
problem that's hardly unique to fedoraproject.org.
and I don't think he understands why that line is in there.
Quite likely http://www.thenoodleincident.com/tutorials/typography/index.html
from 2002 is the method's inception. I've been understanding the power CSS
gives stylists to reduce web site usability since before I got broadband and
installed Apache too long ago to remember, around the time the masses began
discovering what the term blog meant.
It (body { font-size: 76%) "is in there" to reduce the site's base font size
from the user's optimum size, as reflected in his browser's default size
setting, a size the stylist has no power nor need to know, to a smaller size
that:
1-crams more content into the viewport
2-reduces legibility <http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html>
3-reduces usability
4-reduces accessibility <http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/accessibility.html>
5-says to all its users they've improperly set their default text sizes in
their browsers
6-shrinks the site's base text size to 57.76% of optimum
<http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/area76.html>
7-induces users to apply defensive measures to compensate for small text,
such as minimum size enforcement, disabling site styles entirely, zooming,
and suboptimizing display configuration
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/dd464659%28v=vs.8...
Quite notable in that last URL is that in the Microsoft sample, only 39% of
users of HDTV displays were using the native resolution of the display,
instead using a lower resolution in order to make everything bigger. And it
says nothing about people who don't use computers at all only because in
their experience tiny everything makes them too hard to use.
Setting an overall base document text size at other than 100%/medium/1rem,
however implemented, is offensive behavior, otherwise definable as rude.
<http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/rudeweb.html>
A good primer on how to work with CSS is Eric Meyer's
O'Reilly CSS book.
Meyer hosts the CSS-D wiki http://css-discuss.incutio.com/wiki/Main_Page and
mailing list, for those who'd rather bootstrap the web to progress the web
than buy a book. The oldest post I can find I made on that list is days short
of 8 years old. Without having looked I would have sworn I was a subscriber
since far earlier. http://webdesign-l.com/ is another I've been using about
the same length of time.
On 2012-12-06 20:57 (GMT-0500) Máirín Duffy composed:
you're going to have to treat them with a little more respect.
Respect cuts both ways. http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-mairduff1200.png clearly
demonstrated serious disrespect for visitors to your blog. The current
version http://fm.no-ip.com/SS/SC/sc-mairduff1200b.png shows you've since
incorporated vastly more respect than you had previously. Your old style.css
set body text size to 13px, 42.25% of the browser default on the system I'm
composing this on, 29.34% of the default on the system those screenshots were
taken on. Your new style.css moved from 13px on body to 87.5% on html and
1rem on body, which translates to 76.56% of the browser default on both
systems, a vast improvement, and far better than most sites, still rude, but
less blatantly so.
The legibility improvement via size increase is noticeably offset by #444
gray text, while the overall layout impression, like so many other sites that
overrule font designers' optimal leading, is that of a middle schooler's
double-spaced term paper. Then there are those tiny images with illegible
what appears to be 13px text when viewed at their intrinsic size and much
smaller as embedded in your page.
Surely though, if you were as passionate as your language and
repeated
mailing list bludgeonings suggest, you'd take the time to actually learn
how to do it and do it.
I do know how to use CSS, though when Ajax and scripting get involved I'm
blocked by lack of knowledge and lack of interest. In part because I know of
no project policy statement indicating my effort would not go for naught, for
the time being at least I choose not to steal the time it would require from
other commitments waiting on available time.
In my thread starter I asked "Is there a compelling reason Fedora can't be a
leader in web site friendliness...?" Without a satisfactory answer to that, a
statement that it should be, what it would mean to be, and a plan to get
there, I can't justify stealing the time required to do CSS grunt work.
--
"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/
7:57 p.m.
On Thu, 2012-12-06 at 15:45 -0500, Felix Miata wrote:
You say I'm empowered, but that's only a theory.
That is correct only because you've willingly forfeited any power you
might have had by basically treating me (and other Fedora contributors)
terribly. You've lost close to all of the time, support, and care I
would have given you and I think you've also likely alienated some of
the other folks who could have made changes for you via your behavior on
the Fedora mailing lists this past week.
If you want people to drop what they are doing and prioritize the work
you want done but refuse to do yourself (excuses aside), you're going to
have to treat them with a little more respect. I would advise that you
actually ponder rather than place in your sig that quote from Proverbs
you stick in your sig. In fact, there are a few other parts of Proverbs
and I would also recommend the Sermon on the Mount that would be
beneficial for you to ponder. That is, if you truly want to achieve your
goal of bettering websites' legibility but without doing the work
yourself, only by getting others to do the work for you.
Surely though, if you were as passionate as your language and repeated
mailing list bludgeonings suggest, you'd take the time to actually learn
how to do it and do it. By sitting here and continuing this, you're
actually making the situation worse by stealing time away from the folks
who do the work.
~m
4150
days inactive
4160
days old
websites@lists.fedoraproject.org
18 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Felix Miata -
Máirín Duffy -
Ryan Lerch -
Stephen John Smoogen