On 2015-12-21 18:37, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

> That's a large leap. I suggest using Ddoc instead of Sass compact CSS
> files, see the existing instance at
> https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/css/cssmenu.css.dd.
>
>
> CoffeeScript sounds like a nice thing to add and is from what I've heard
> reasonably stable.
>
> We can't make the site depend on dub at this time. There have been
> situations in the past when dub wouldn't build and nobody was available
> to work on it. At that time only the alternate documentation got broken,
> but if the site depends on it we're looking at catastrophic failure.

I have no interest in using Ddoc. If that's a requirement we can close down the redesign idea completely.

> Just defer it and we're good.

I think it looks pretty bad and will ruin the design.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 06:38:24 UTC, Dmitry wrote:
> Left-side menu. I don't like when site uses only half of screen (is anybody still uses 1280*1024 and 1024*768 displays? Statistic of November says that 5% and 2% of people). New design prepared for 4:3, not for wide-screen displays (1920*1080 - 35%, 1366*768 - 26%, etc).

I use exclusively 4:3 and 3:4, 1600*1280, 1280*1024, 1024*1280, 1024*768 and 768*1024.
Widescreen is for movies...

Besides, many programmers with wide screen does not have multiple monitors, so they need space both for website and editor on same screen.

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 08:04:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> I use exclusively 4:3 and 3:4, 1600*1280, 1280*1024, 1024*1280, 1024*768 and 768*1024.
Yep, you are one of that 5%.

> Widescreen is for movies...
No.

> Besides, many programmers with wide screen does not have multiple monitors,
Many programmers do not have. But other many programmers have.
I use multiple monitors, 16:9 and 4:3. All studios, where I worked, uses multiple monitors. Most part of professional developers, who I personally know, uses multiple monitors.
So, this is not an argument.

> so they need space both for website and editor on same screen.
Firstly, in most cases it will be D documentation. And it anyway will use left-side menu.
And second - current design already support small width.

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 08:52:28 UTC, Dmitry wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 08:04:29 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> I use exclusively 4:3 and 3:4, 1600*1280, 1280*1024, 1024*1280, 1024*768 and 768*1024.
> Yep, you are one of that 5%.

That's silliness, and not how percentages work at all. To suggest that 95% of people that go to dlang.org have widescreens because 95% of some other user base is nonsense.

The reason web designers have a strong preference towards tall sites vs wide sites is twofold. Firstly, its hard to collect meaningful statistics on their own users, because browser dimensions might be set based on the existing site design. Secondly they need to design for mobile screens anyways, because request headers suggest they account for over 50% of internet users. That said, that's something that should also be specifically checked per website.

>> Widescreen is for movies...
> No.

Opinion. I agree with you, but why alienate anyone? It's not like narrow websites are unusable. They're just not your preference. For people like Ola, wide websites are legitimately unusable.

>> Besides, many programmers with wide screen does not have multiple monitors,
> Many programmers do not have. But other many programmers have.
> I use multiple monitors, 16:9 and 4:3. All studios, where I worked, uses multiple monitors. Most part of professional developers, who I personally know, uses multiple monitors.
> So, this is not an argument.

Again, I agree with the sentiment, but anecdotal evidence isn't a legitimate argument to block design changes. Example anecdotal counter-argument: Even though I have 3 x widescreen monitors, I generally only have any one web page on a sixth of my total screen space, which favors a narrow format.

>> so they need space both for website and editor on same screen.
> Firstly, in most cases it will be D documentation. And it anyway will use left-side menu.
> And second - current design already support small width.

To be fair, D's documentation uses a left-side menu, but it removes the top level navigation (you have to press the logo). I'd call that more of a design flaw than a feature.

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 07:19:48 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> I have no interest in using Ddoc. If that's a requirement we can close down the redesign idea completely.

Jacob, I really like the design, but how are others supposed to contribute, e.g. those who come from the dmd side of things, if it's not in ddoc? Not everyone knows HTML. Secondly, all of the existing content will have to be converted. And finally, what will we do about PDF, epub, and LaTeX generation if everything is in HTML?

If you wish to go with another format like Markdown, we get to the problems I listed here: http://forum.dlang.org/post/pxobzxkhxbobuhrsexje@forum.dlang.org

> I think it looks pretty bad and will ruin the design.

But the logo is a rather small part of the overall design. Plus, there is the problem of brand recognition. Changing the logo is not a small event in the grand scheme of things.

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 14:42:35 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 07:19:48 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> I have no interest in using Ddoc. If that's a requirement we can close down the redesign idea completely.
>
> Jacob, I really like the design, but how are others supposed to contribute, e.g. those who come from the dmd side of things, if it's not in ddoc? Not everyone knows HTML.

If you don't know HTML then you probably shouldn't be doing webdev. It's basic foundational knowledge. I highly doubt that anybody who wants to work on the website has put time into learning DDOC but not HTML.

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 13:38:48 UTC, Charles wrote:
> That's silliness, and not how percentages work at all. To suggest that 95% of people that go to dlang.org have widescreens because 95% of some other user base is nonsense.
1) Do you have statistics of dlang.org?
2) Do you think that dlang.org statisitcs will be very different with world statistics? I don't think so.
3) Do you think that % of 4:3 displays will not drop? In all world it decrease each month.

I used statistics from my professional sphere, but ok, lets try google any other.
For example, http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
1024x768  Jan 2015: 4%
1280x1024 Jan 2015: 7%
1366x768 33%
1920x1080 16%

Other way. Check any shop. How many new monitors 4:3 (or 5:4) it have, and how many widescreen?
Check, how many new 4:3 models have, for example, LG? One. Asus? No one. Any other company? Only a few, right? Trend is that % of 4:3 displays goes to be 0 soon.

> Opinion. I agree with you, but why alienate anyone? It's not like narrow websites are unusable. They're just not your preference. For people like Ola, wide websites are legitimately unusable.
I did not say that site must be only for widescreen. Keywords: Responsive Web Design.

> To be fair, D's documentation uses a left-side menu, but it removes the top level navigation (you have to press the logo).
Yep, new design has _same_ solution.

> I'd call that more of a design flaw than a feature.
Do you have more good ideas?

Let me preface this saying I'm mildly on the just-keep-ddoc side of things....

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 14:42:35 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
> it's not in ddoc? Not everyone knows HTML.

If you don't know HTML, the ddoc macros the dlang.org site uses will be pretty mysterious too. What is $(SPANC)? or $(DIVID), without referring to html?

> Secondly, all of the existing content will have to be converted.

Oh, that's trivial! dmd -D literally does that automatically.

> And finally, what will we do about PDF, epub, and LaTeX generation if everything is in HTML?

That's similarly extremely easy, actually IMO quite a bit easier than messing with the ddoc macros, because HTML is a very easy language to parse and transform, especially if written semantically.

> If you wish to go with another format like Markdown, we get to the problems I listed here:

I agree, markdown is gross.


> But the logo is a rather small part of the overall design. Plus, there is the problem of brand recognition. Changing the logo is not a small event in the grand scheme of things.

The new logo design still struck me as the same brand when I first saw it.

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 14:57:22 UTC, Meta wrote:
> If you don't know HTML then you probably shouldn't be doing webdev.

Most the website is content articles, not web dev.

My ideal situation with the website would probably be a html skeleton with ddoc in the contents, providing semantic content macros in there.

....which isn't *too* far from where we are now! The html skeleton is found in the DDOC macro here:

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/blob/master/dlang.org.ddoc#L54

(why isn't that in html.ddoc? the multiple files is pretty wtfy to me)

Though why ever it uses the ridiculous html pretending to be ddoc macros is beyond me.


I have a lot of hatred toward the current state of the website and documentation, but ddoc in principle really isn't one of them. I don't feel it is enough (we could really use things like auto generated tables of contents!) and I'm not married to it (though the Phobos inline docs kinda are... let's not forget about them), but it isn't that bad.

Just the way we're using it is pretty silly.

On Tuesday, 22 December 2015 at 08:52:28 UTC, Dmitry wrote:
> Yep, you are one of that 5%.

Me too.

> Many programmers do not have. But other many programmers have.
> I use multiple monitors, 16:9 and 4:3. All studios, where I worked, uses multiple monitors. Most part of professional developers, who I personally know, uses multiple monitors.
> So, this is not an argument.

While I have a second monitor, I very rarely use it (and when I do, it is more for youtube than documentation).


I also very rarely keep websites maximized. I like to resize the window so I can see it and the other stuff I want at the same time. So while my screen might be 1280, my browser window often isn't.... and a good web design should work in all these cases.