Re: [boost] [website] Link styles.

From: Kevin Wheatley (hxpro_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-14 13:07:19

Rene Rivera wrote:
> It does show where you've been. It's just a subtle effect in that
> regard, and shows differently if you are on IE. The style of underline
> on the mouse-over is dotted if you've already visited a link (on IE it's
> dashed and shows up even without the mouse-over). Also for external
> links, the ones that take you out of the site, the underline is the
> orange color instead of gray.

ah, I see that now, but I'm more thinking as I try read a bunch of
pages in a list say like the 'license' page...

as I click on the various options in the grey box I can't see which
I've been to, so when I click on the back button on my mouse I have to
guess where I was. If I had a nested example of this and I do a tree
walk by hand, I don't want to keep a mental stack of progress so far.
I guess it is different to my expectation - does not mean it is wrong
of course.

> Ah, border, long trail of feedback on that from the past :-) If it's
> just the libraries page that looks off, I'd rather fix that than mess
> with adding borders. There's a strong aversion to borders for many
> people and I'm already pushing it with the sidebar.

my problem is that when reading I like a little space between the edge
of the browser/window decoration and the text in the same way I'd
expect to see it in a printed page/book (perhaps without the
guttering). But there really needs to be something on the libraries
page for certain.

FYI, my physical screen size means I have something a little larger
than an A4 page for the page content, with a 3" border arount left,
top and right for 'other stuff' (tool bars, rss feeds, system monitors
etc...) the white edge around the page would make it look like an A4
paper floating in the middle of my screen, rather than aligning
everything left, with a great gap that appears on the right when your
reading the actual documentation becuase the main navigation aid
disapears, it would look better to me to be central to the page area.

> > [footer]
> > should it not have the same styling as the top with a little white
> > surrounding it?
> 
> Can't think of a good reason why it has to be the same. Being different
> it doesn't impart as much significance as the header.

it was a simplicity idea, making the bottom look more like the top in
terms of colour selection. I don't think you need to use the image, in
fact I think you should not.

"The top bar is so Web 2.0" (but with too much drop shadow) the bottom
could be if the colour was lighter. (Assuming you would want the site
to look like a "Web 2.0 " site :-)

> > I find it odd that the footer changes size depending on the main body
> > content, it gets quite large on some of the more empty pages.
> 
> It's not really changing sizes :-)

well it is a solid box about a 3rd of my visible page area. not a nice
view. but if you says its not changinfg sizes it must be some
relativity aspect of web browsing that I'm missing... I certainly
didn't sit on a mooving train to view them...

Talking of changing sizes, the "Get Boost  >" messes up when I scale
the text size up (so I can read the pages from 3' away  - I'm lazy :-)

> > It also makes it jump off screen when showing the 'index' tab for
> > instance - minor.
> 
> Not sure what you mean by "jump off screen".

I guess I'm saying the footer doesn't float at the bottom of the
visible page area... thinking it this way, that would be ugly :-) so
Ignore me.

Thanks

Kevin

-- 
| Kevin Wheatley, Cinesite (Europe) Ltd | Nobody thinks this      |
| Senior Technology                     | My employer for certain |
| And Network Systems Architect         | Not even myself         |