IMHO, the font size wasn't bad before.  Nice to have a larger one with lots to read.  Just my opinion.

Also I suggest a line-height of 1.4em for the content.  This generally makes large blocks of text (e.g. documentation, articles, blog posts) easier to read.

Walter: if you're reading this, what are things you'd like to see the website do?  Aside from possible comments, it's better to get a full plan together (usually called the "discovery" phase) before jumping in and making a mess.

I know you may not have time to worry about things like that.  In that case, maybe you want to say so and let a group of people loose (e.g. +1 and -1'ing each other ideas) to give you a proposal of features and suggestions.

-[Unknown]

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> IMHO, the font size wasn't bad before.  Nice to have a larger one with lots to read.  Just my opinion.
>
> Also I suggest a line-height of 1.4em for the content.  This generally makes large blocks of text (e.g. documentation, articles, blog posts) easier to read.
>
> Walter: if you're reading this, what are things you'd like to see the website do?  Aside from possible comments, it's better to get a full plan together (usually called the "discovery" phase) before jumping in and making a mess.
>
> I know you may not have time to worry about things like that.  In that case, maybe you want to say so and let a group of people loose (e.g. +1 and -1'ing each other ideas) to give you a proposal of features and suggestions.
>
> -[Unknown]


Personally I think it would be great if the community could take over the majority of the D website.  A flashy official website could do a lot for the reputation of D.

-Joel

janderson wrote:
> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>  > IMHO, the font size wasn't bad before.  Nice to have a larger one with lots to read.  Just my opinion.
>  >
>  > Also I suggest a line-height of 1.4em for the content.  This generally makes large blocks of text (e.g. documentation, articles, blog posts) easier to read.
>  >
>  > Walter: if you're reading this, what are things you'd like to see the website do?  Aside from possible comments, it's better to get a full plan together (usually called the "discovery" phase) before jumping in and making a mess.
>  >
>  > I know you may not have time to worry about things like that.  In that case, maybe you want to say so and let a group of people loose (e.g. +1 and -1'ing each other ideas) to give you a proposal of features and suggestions.
>  >
>  > -[Unknown]
> 
> 
> Personally I think it would be great if the community could take over the majority of the D website.  A flashy official website could do a lot for the reputation of D.
> 
> -Joel

Alternatively a website style competition or something might work.

-Joel

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> IMHO, the font size wasn't bad before.  Nice to have a larger one with lots to read.  Just my opinion.
> 
> Also I suggest a line-height of 1.4em for the content.  This generally makes large blocks of text (e.g. documentation, articles, blog posts) easier to read.
> 
> Walter: if you're reading this, what are things you'd like to see the website do?  Aside from possible comments, it's better to get a full plan together (usually called the "discovery" phase) before jumping in and making a mess.

I don't know, except that I don't want it to be an ongoing time sink.

Some goals:
1) easy to navigate
2) easy on the eyes
3) standards compliant
4) fast loading
5) printable with a print.css

Things to avoid:
1) glitz
2) fixed size pages
3) long download times
4) clever stuff that'll break with the next browser update

> I know you may not have time to worry about things like that.  In that case, maybe you want to say so and let a group of people loose (e.g. +1 and -1'ing each other ideas) to give you a proposal of features and suggestions.

Walter Bright wrote:
> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>> IMHO, the font size wasn't bad before.  Nice to have a larger one with lots to read.  Just my opinion.
>>
>> Also I suggest a line-height of 1.4em for the content.  This generally makes large blocks of text (e.g. documentation, articles, blog posts) easier to read.
>>
>> Walter: if you're reading this, what are things you'd like to see the website do?  Aside from possible comments, it's better to get a full plan together (usually called the "discovery" phase) before jumping in and making a mess.
> 
> I don't know, except that I don't want it to be an ongoing time sink.
> 
> Some goals:
> 1) easy to navigate
> 2) easy on the eyes
> 3) standards compliant
> 4) fast loading
> 5) printable with a print.css
> 
> Things to avoid:
> 1) glitz
> 2) fixed size pages
> 3) long download times
> 4) clever stuff that'll break with the next browser update

What do you think of the Tango site?
(I'm sure there's some synergy to be found around here).

On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 15:36:20 +0100, Don Clugston wrote:

> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>>> IMHO, the font size wasn't bad before.  Nice to have a larger one with lots to read.  Just my opinion.
>>>
>>> Also I suggest a line-height of 1.4em for the content.  This generally makes large blocks of text (e.g. documentation, articles, blog posts) easier to read.
>>>
>>> Walter: if you're reading this, what are things you'd like to see the website do?  Aside from possible comments, it's better to get a full plan together (usually called the "discovery" phase) before jumping in and making a mess.
>> 
>> I don't know, except that I don't want it to be an ongoing time sink.
>> 
>> Some goals:
>> 1) easy to navigate
>> 2) easy on the eyes
>> 3) standards compliant
>> 4) fast loading
>> 5) printable with a print.css
>> 
>> Things to avoid:
>> 1) glitz
>> 2) fixed size pages
>> 3) long download times
>> 4) clever stuff that'll break with the next browser update
> 
> What do you think of the Tango site?
> (I'm sure there's some synergy to be found around here).

on that note, I'm still looking forward to the integration of the forums into track, among others. Any news on that?

Walter Bright wrote:

> 4) clever stuff that'll break with the next browser update

Does anyone (Mozilla, IE, etc.) maintain a "breakable browser" that is intended to checking what a web page would look like without some things working?

Walter Bright wrote:
> Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
>> IMHO, the font size wasn't bad before.  Nice to have a larger one with lots to read.  Just my opinion.
>>
>> Also I suggest a line-height of 1.4em for the content.  This generally makes large blocks of text (e.g. documentation, articles, blog posts) easier to read.
>>
>> Walter: if you're reading this, what are things you'd like to see the website do?  Aside from possible comments, it's better to get a full plan together (usually called the "discovery" phase) before jumping in and making a mess.
>
> I don't know, except that I don't want it to be an ongoing time sink.

Exactly why this should be handed off to the community.  No offense, but some of the communities web pages look a lot better then D's.

-Joel

PS - I apologize for sending this to your personal email, I hit the wrong button.

The Web Developer Extension for Firefox.  Microsoft developed a similar toolbar for IE (forget the name but it's like Web Developer Toolbar for IE.)

Also, obviously, following standards bodies, setting your Content-Type to application/xhtml+xml for testing, validating your html/xhtml/css.

And any browser allows you to disable JavaScript entirely.  Using JavaScript debuggers such as WebKit's and Firebug (IE has none afaik.)

Nightlies of WebKit and Firefox/SeaMonkey, as well as the latest Opera, also help here for checking against latest specs.

This really isn't as hard as most people make it.  So many want to use hacks (e.g. exploiting bugs in implementations) because that can't make anything work on all browsers.  In my experience, there is always a right way - a clean way that will always work.

I've been doing this for quite some years, written a lot of CSS, XHTML, and JavaScript, and it's been a long time since I've done anything that wouldn't work in tomorrow's browsers.  People act like it's not true, but if you follow the standards (and possibly add an additional IE-only stylesheet using conditional comments) you really won't have these problems.

Sorry for ranting.  Sometimes I'm really disappointed with my industry (generalizing; many I've worked with are very good.)

-[Unknown]


BCS wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
> 
>> 4) clever stuff that'll break with the next browser update
> 
> Does anyone (Mozilla, IE, etc.) maintain a "breakable browser" that is intended to checking what a web page would look like without some things working?

Unknown W. Brackets wrote:
> Using JavaScript debuggers such as WebKit's and Firebug (IE has none afaik.)

You can debug JavaScript with Visual Studio ("Disable script debuging" in the Advanced tab of Internet Options).

Nothing compared with Firebug though.


-- 
Julio César Carrascal Urquijo
http://jcesar.artelogico.com/