Am 22.12.2012 17:49, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
> 
> Continuing the thought of screen real estate - shouldn't these sections better be at the _bottom_ of the page? After all they are just noise for the typical reader and since the pages are not as long anymore, they still won't get drowned by the rest of the page.
> 

In the latest upload a number of items is addressed:
 - vertical margins at the top
 - redundant column headers
 - +/- signs for the package tree
 - jumps to line numbers on github (which are off because of changes after the release)
 - some macro processing fixes (e.g. std.array.popBack contained some bad HTML because of this)
 - also moved the authors/license sections to the bottom to see how it looks

Needs F5 reloading because of caching.

On 12/22/12 12:53 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 22.12.2012 17:49, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
>>
>> Continuing the thought of screen real estate - shouldn't these sections better be at the _bottom_ of
>> the page? After all they are just noise for the typical reader and since the pages are not as long
>> anymore, they still won't get drowned by the rest of the page.
>>
>
> In the latest upload a number of items is addressed:
>   - vertical margins at the top
>   - redundant column headers
>   - +/- signs for the package tree
>   - jumps to line numbers on github (which are off because of changes after the release)
>   - some macro processing fixes (e.g. std.array.popBack contained some bad HTML because of this)
>   - also moved the authors/license sections to the bottom to see how it looks

For the lazy: http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/index.html

> Needs F5 reloading because of caching.

Or Command-R :o).


Andrei

On Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 17:54:29 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:

> In the latest upload a number of items is addressed:
>  - vertical margins at the top
>  - redundant column headers
>  - +/- signs for the package tree
>  - jumps to line numbers on github (which are off because of changes after the release)
>  - some macro processing fixes (e.g. std.array.popBack contained some bad HTML because of this)
>  - also moved the authors/license sections to the bottom to see how it looks
>
> Needs F5 reloading because of caching.

Clicking std.array.appender results in a 404 page.

--
/Jacob Carlborg

Am 22.12.2012 19:13, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 12/22/12 12:53 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Am 22.12.2012 17:49, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
>>>
>>> Continuing the thought of screen real estate - shouldn't these sections better be at the _bottom_ of the page? After all they are just noise for the typical reader and since the pages are not as long anymore, they still won't get drowned by the rest of the page.
>>>
>>
>> In the latest upload a number of items is addressed:
>>   - vertical margins at the top
>>   - redundant column headers
>>   - +/- signs for the package tree
>>   - jumps to line numbers on github (which are off because of changes after the release)
>>   - some macro processing fixes (e.g. std.array.popBack contained some bad HTML because of this)
>>   - also moved the authors/license sections to the bottom to see how it looks
> 
> For the lazy: http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/index.html
> 
>> Needs F5 reloading because of caching.
> 
> Or Command-R :o).
> 
> 
> Andrei

Right... I remember there was this certain system with strange mice and strange keyboards, where I ripped my hair off numerous times after trying to type an @ ;)

Am 22.12.2012 19:20, schrieb Jacob Carlborg:
> On Saturday, 22 December 2012 at 17:54:29 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> 
>> In the latest upload a number of items is addressed:
>>  - vertical margins at the top
>>  - redundant column headers
>>  - +/- signs for the package tree
>>  - jumps to line numbers on github (which are off because of changes after the release)
>>  - some macro processing fixes (e.g. std.array.popBack contained some bad HTML because of this)
>>  - also moved the authors/license sections to the bottom to see how it looks
>>
>> Needs F5 reloading because of caching.
> 
> Clicking std.array.appender results in a 404 page.
> 
> -- 
> /Jacob Carlborg

Looks like a Windows file system problem. Appender.html was overwritten by appender.html before upload (or vice versa) and only Appender.html with appender.html's contents ended up on the server.

Some escaping of capital letters is probably in order - just a bit sad that the URLs get a bit uglier then. Any other ideas?

On 12/22/12 12:53 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 22.12.2012 17:49, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
>>
>> Continuing the thought of screen real estate - shouldn't these sections better be at the _bottom_ of
>> the page? After all they are just noise for the typical reader and since the pages are not as long
>> anymore, they still won't get drowned by the rest of the page.
>>
>
> In the latest upload a number of items is addressed:

Much better. A few more comments.

First on the module-level pages.

* Styling at the top is still too sparse. How about adding a "Source" Button in line with (and to the left of) "Improve this page" and "Page wiki"?

* Clicking on "source" actually doesn't work (mind the underscore)

* Spacing of cell text in tables is larger at the bottom. I think spacing should be equally distributed (while staying equal in total).

* Spacing of lines inside a paragraph in the table should be a tad smaller. But only in the module-level table, not all paragraphs.

Now onto the item-level pages, using http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/std/file/attrIsFile.html as an example.

* I'm thinking the authors and license should not be present on each item-level page.

* Function name in the heading should be in code font.

* The module of the function (std.file) should be obvious and easy to navigate to through one click. One idea is to say "Function std.file.attrIsFile" and make the "std.file" portion a link to the module.

* The left column should scroll to show the selected module. For attrIsFile that's not the case on some screens (the selection std/file is invisible unless user scrolls down).

* For the "Parameters" section, either keep the "Parameters:" heading and replace "Parameter name" with "Name", or (preferably) just delete "Parameters:" entirely.


Thanks,

Andrei

Am 22.12.2012 19:56, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
> On 12/22/12 12:53 PM, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
>> Am 22.12.2012 17:49, schrieb Sönke Ludwig:
>>>
>>> Continuing the thought of screen real estate - shouldn't these sections better be at the _bottom_ of the page? After all they are just noise for the typical reader and since the pages are not as long anymore, they still won't get drowned by the rest of the page.
>>>
>>
>> In the latest upload a number of items is addressed:
> 
> Much better. A few more comments.
> 
> First on the module-level pages.
> 
> * Styling at the top is still too sparse. How about adding a "Source" Button in line with (and to the left of) "Improve this page" and "Page wiki"?
> 
> * Clicking on "source" actually doesn't work (mind the underscore)
> 
> * Spacing of cell text in tables is larger at the bottom. I think spacing should be equally distributed (while staying equal in total).
> 
> * Spacing of lines inside a paragraph in the table should be a tad smaller. But only in the module-level table, not all paragraphs.
> 
> Now onto the item-level pages, using http://vibed.org/temp/d-programming-language.org/phobos/std/file/attrIsFile.html as an example.
> 
> * I'm thinking the authors and license should not be present on each item-level page.
> 

Everything above has been incorporated. (uploading may still take a few minutes)

> * Function name in the heading should be in code font.
> 
> * The module of the function (std.file) should be obvious and easy to navigate to through one click. One idea is to say "Function std.file.attrIsFile" and make the "std.file" portion a link to the module.
> 

I've hacked that in, but I think different fonts inside headings look too messy. Pity that there is not already a place for a navigation bar in the page layout. That would be a good fit.

But, regarding the header topic, now that the mini-sections from the top are all gone, I've changed the section headers back to a normal header style to get a little more cleaned up look. They also fight a lot less with the table headers like this.

Btw. - I didn't really want to get into styling issues, but anyway - the left margin of examples vs. no margin for tables is a bit disturbing IMO. Objections for removing it?

> * The left column should scroll to show the selected module. For attrIsFile that's not the case on some screens (the selection std/file is invisible unless user scrolls down).
> 

This would require a larger rework of the page layout. I would be very happy if someone could volunteer for such a thing, as I'm already stretching my time budget a lot.


PS: Firefox displays the code sections with a smaller font than it should. I'll debug that later.

On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 21:58:34 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
> On 2012-12-21 18:05, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>
>> s/remove/integrate/
>> s/ugly/awesome/
>
> It's ugly that they are manually created. Over 300 lines of comments that the doc generator should be doing automatically. I would say that is far from awesome.

I would add to that that duplicating both the FS and the D module system by yet another method of grouping symbols is a *horrible* notion reeks of poor design.

On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 18:31:48 UTC, Sönke Ludwig wrote:
> Am 21.12.2012 18:05, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
>> (...)
>> 
>> The cheat sheet in std.algorithm is unnecessary (though I liked the brief examples), but there's a
>> lot of value in the symbols grouped by category (searching, comparison, ...) at the top. So we need
>> to have a means to group things in the new interface.
>
> Ideally, we would invent some standard DDOC syntax to specify groups then. But generally an
> ungrouped list also has its advantages when you try to look something up _by name_. I've found
> myself in the past, skimming over the category table multiple times, looking for a certain function,
> until deciding that I had to guess the category first, which may not always be obvious.
>
> So maybe keeping the manual category quick index table (and maybe putting it in a separate
> "Categories:" section) is a viable option for the time being? Most modules probably wouldn't need
> one anyway.
>
>>> What also would be nice is to have the methods inline, expandable.
>
> Would that mean the Classes/Structs/... tables as f.ex. in std.datetime?
> So there would be a small clickable thing and all members would fly out below it as direct links?
> and possibly with the short description?
> What about different kinds of members? Only methods, all grouped by type or all in one list?
>
> I'm just asking because I don't have any preferences for how such a thing should look like.

Other docs systems provide a sorted index of symbols and also the module tree can be further expanded to see the contained symbols. Both very handy features.

On 12/22/12 5:10 PM, foobar wrote:
> On Friday, 21 December 2012 at 21:58:34 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
>> On 2012-12-21 18:05, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>
>>> s/remove/integrate/
>>> s/ugly/awesome/
>>
>> It's ugly that they are manually created. Over 300 lines of comments
>> that the doc generator should be doing automatically. I would say that
>> is far from awesome.
>
> I would add to that that duplicating both the FS and the D module system
> by yet another method of grouping symbols is a *horrible* notion reeks
> of poor design.

What is FS? File system?

Andrei