== Quote from Matthias Pleh (matthias.pleh@gmx.at)'s article
> I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
> It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
> Content itself hasn't changed!
> Any thoughts?
> Please check also the links on the sidebar!
> I have taken this from a template from Justin Calvarese (thanks), so
> maybe some links should changed, reordered or even removed!
> greets
> Matthias

Interesting choices on the layout. I'm not quite sure what I think about it yet, but I think it is an improvement on the old layout.

I had an idea a long time ago to try to match the style of the Walter's official D website. I don't remember if I decided that it was too much effort or if I decided that I didn't like the official style enough (or maybe I just ran out of time), but I still think it would be nice if the official site and Wiki4D had more similar styles.

At least an effort could be made to coordinate colors, graphics, and fonts.

It's probably an impossible dream anyway.

jcc7

Stewart Gordon wrote:
> Matthias Pleh wrote:
>> I have renewed the layout of the wiki4d-site.
>> It's not finished, but I think it is already useable!
>> Content itself hasn't changed!
>>
>> Any thoughts?
> <snip>
> 
> Get rid of the abomination that is font sizes in px!  Specify them in em or, even better, not at all.
> 
	I agree that font sizes in px is an abomination, but font sizes in
em is just plain ridiculous since 1em is defined in terms of the
font size! Use either pt (which should work if the os/browser is
configured properly), percents, or the keywords (x-large, large,
normal, small, x-small).

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger@jabber.fr

Going OT here, but I've gotta defend the pixel font sizes.

I used to do percents, (since I read somewhere that px is evil and zomfg never use it...) but I got tired of the constant "bug" reports coming in from the clients saying "it doesn't match the psd exactly on my Mac". Specifying them explicitly in px avoids this.

The way I see it, if you care about font sizes, go with px and match the design. If you don't care, just don't specify them at all.

pt isn't reliable either; it is different across browsers, and apparently, it is only technically defined in print anyway. Moreover, the rest of the site's design is probably in pixels, so it is easier to see it fitting to stick to the same all along.


Now, I hate all designer's choices (in my mind, graphic design is a synonym for incompetent producer of illegible ugliness), so in my main browser, I have a min and max size set, so I'm free of their bad decisions. Every browser in use, aside from the aging IE6, scales px fonts just fine too, so it is ok there.

Adam Ruppe wrote:
> Going OT here, but I've gotta defend the pixel font sizes.
> 
> I used to do percents, (since I read somewhere that px is evil and zomfg never use it...) but I got tired of the constant "bug" reports coming in from the clients saying "it doesn't match the psd exactly on my Mac". Specifying them explicitly in px avoids this.
> 
> The way I see it, if you care about font sizes, go with px and match the design. If you don't care, just don't specify them at all.
> 
	The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
depends on the screen you are viewing the page on. The text for
wiki4d is 1.7mm high on my screen, that's much too small for comfort
(as a comparison, the way I've configured it, the text in
Thunderbird is 2mm high, e.g. 18% more, and lots of people find it
too small when they look at my screen).

> pt isn't reliable either; it is different across browsers, and apparently, it is only technically defined in print anyway. Moreover, the rest of the site's design is probably in pixels, so it is easier to see it fitting to stick to the same all along.
> 
	Pt is supposed to be reliable (and it is reasonably so on recent
browsers, e.g. not IE6) because it adjusts to the screen resolution
(not to be confused with the definition). Pt is an absolute measure
(there are exactly 72 points in an inch) and relates to the actual
size you want the text to appear no matter what medium is used to
display it (whether a 72dpi screen, a 96dpi screen or a 600dpi printer).

> 
> Now, I hate all designer's choices (in my mind, graphic design is a synonym for incompetent producer of illegible ugliness), so in my main browser, I have a min and max size set, so I'm free of their bad decisions.
	Unfortunately, that doesn't work: it is perfectly legitimate for
some text to be smaller (for example the text at the bottom of the
page that says "last changed on..." or "made with...") and setting a
min size will prevent those from being smaller than the page content.

> Every browser in use, aside from the aging IE6, scales px fonts just fine too, so it is ok there.
	Yes, it is possible to scale pages, but that's a pain and shouldn't
be necessary anyway. I've configured my browser so that the default
font size (and the default font for that matter) is the one I find
most comfortable to read text. A web site which expects people to
actually *read* the contents should respect those choices (a web
site whose contents is mostly pictures is another matter entirely).

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger@jabber.fr

On 5/31/10, "Jérôme M. Berger" <jeberger@free.fr> wrote:
> 	The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
> depends on the screen you are viewing the page on.

That's true, it definitely changes across different screens.

I'm probably biased by the fact that the majority of the sites I've been doing are very picture and video heavy - the pixel measurements are always the right size relative to the images, which are also sized in pixels.

>Pt is an absolute measure
> (there are exactly 72 points in an inch)

Huh, I read somewhere that it wasn't defined on screen, but only for printers. I guess I was wrong - the measuring tape agrees with you. Though, it still comes out different on my Linux box than it does on the designer's Mac, leading to bug reports whenever I try it.  I really don't know why, but I've gotta deal with it somehow.

Though, even so, this still isn't an ideal measure. One inch on my television is a different beast than one inch on my monitor, since I sit much farther away from the TV... percents would be fine, but they don't work well for the rest of the page content, so the fonts start overflowing from images. Gah, the web sucks.

> 	Unfortunately, that doesn't work: it is perfectly legitimate for
> some text to be smaller (for example the text at the bottom of the
> page that says "last changed on..." or "made with...")

Meh, not to me. It is already at the bottom, so it is out of the way. The small size just complicates it if I do care. I feel the same way about grey on grey text. Bah!

> 	Yes, it is possible to scale pages, but that's a pain and shouldn't
> be necessary anyway. I've configured my browser so that the default
> font size (and the default font for that matter) is the one I find
> most comfortable to read text. A web site which expects people to
> actually *read* the contents should respect those choices (a web
> site whose contents is mostly pictures is another matter entirely).

Right. That's why all the sites I do for myself just don't specify size at all; trust the user in size, font, color - pretty much everything.

But, the sites for clients are different - lots of images and really picky reviewers mean pixels it is.

On 5/31/10 3:08 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote:
> On 5/31/10, "Jérôme M. Berger"<jeberger@free.fr>  wrote:
>> 	The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
>> depends on the screen you are viewing the page on.
>
> That's true, it definitely changes across different screens.

A good discussion of how to size text on the web is at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/howtosizetextincss/

The bottom line for its recommendations is to use ems, plus font-size:100% in the body tag.

On Mon, 31 May 2010 22:24:07 +0900, Matthias Pleh <matthias.pleh@gmx.at> wrote:

>
>>
>> New design is good!
>>
>> I have a suggestion.
>> Now, Japanese site on Other Languages is inactive.
>> Could you please change link?
>>
>> New link: http://dusers.dip.jp/
>>
>>
>> Masahiro
>
>
> --> done!

Thanks!

> BTW:
> hey, it's a wiki. You can change everything yourself. Ther is no
> registration needed. Just click on the 'edit' link and enter your
> username and you can change the content as you need it.

Oops. I have been misunderstanding that editing a page needs special authority.
Thanks for your advice.


Masahiro

David Gileadi wrote:
> On 5/31/10 3:08 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote:
>> On 5/31/10, "Jérôme M. Berger"<jeberger@free.fr>  wrote:
>>>     The problem is that px is not even theoretically reliable: it
>>> depends on the screen you are viewing the page on.
>>
>> That's true, it definitely changes across different screens.
> 
> A good discussion of how to size text on the web is at http://www.alistapart.com/articles/howtosizetextincss/
> 
> The bottom line for its recommendations is to use ems, plus font-size:100% in the body tag.
	Funny thing is: they got it wrong! The text of that page is too
small here...

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger@free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger@jabber.fr

thanks for your comments

I've played around with the font-size problem and have setup a test page under my folder on the wiki.
I also like the idea from Justin to make the look more like the official d-page.

So please have a look, comment here or change the files directly for the testpage.
http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?MatthiasPleh/TestPage

greets
Matthias

"Matthias Pleh" <matthias.pleh@gmx.at> wrote in message news:hu8r4f$p6j$1@digitalmars.com...
> thanks for your comments
>
> I've played around with the font-size problem and have setup a test page
> under my folder on the wiki.
> I also like the idea from Justin to make the look more like the official
> d-page.
>
> So please have a look, comment here or change the files directly for the
> testpage.
> http://www.prowiki.org/wiki4d/wiki.cgi?MatthiasPleh/TestPage
>

Not a big deal (no pun intended), but the H1 and header/footer links seem absolutely enormous.

-------------------------------
Not sent from an iPhone.