OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed. I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News". http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News".
It's very unusual, but I _think_ I like it overall. I think the right column could use some reorganization; the groupings don't feel very natural to me. But I can't come up with a better suggestion right now ;-) -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
At 10:23 10/04/2005, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News".
It's very unusual, but I _think_ I like it overall. I think the right column could use some reorganization; the groupings don't feel very natural to me. But I can't come up with a better suggestion right now ;-)
I like it too. I think is slightly unusual (in web design) to have the links on the right hand side, but to me it actually makes reading the content (the text on the left) more natural and book like. A few minor (and possibly subjective) thoughts; 1) To me it seems a bit strange having the revised / copyright / license / icons bit halfway down the page on the right hand side. I think it would maybe better at the bottom of the page. 2) In the Updated Libraries section, maybe it would be better for the library name to occupy a line on its own? i.e. Graph Library: Introduced several new algorithms and improved existing algorithms: + <http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/libs/graph/doc/floyd_warshall_shortest.html>floyd warshall all pairs shortest paths, from Lauren Foutz and Scott Hill. +etc To me it makes it easier to scan the list to find the library you are looking for. 3) Finally (I'm not sure about this idea.. but would be interested to see whether it is an improvement or not). Viewing with a browser width of about 800px (half my desktop width).. at the bottom of the page the text of the left has 5 or 6 words per line.. but there is unused space on the right of the page. Would it be possible to allow the text on the left to flow across to the right side of the page if there is space available? Regards Mark
Mark Blewett wrote:
At 10:23 10/04/2005, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
It's very unusual, but I _think_ I like it overall. I think the right column could use some reorganization; the groupings don't feel very natural to me. But I can't come up with a better suggestion right now ;-)
I like it too.
Thank you all :-)
I think is slightly unusual (in web design) to have the links on the right hand side, but to me it actually makes reading the content (the text on the left) more natural and book like.
A few minor (and possibly subjective) thoughts;
1) To me it seems a bit strange having the revised / copyright / license / icons bit halfway down the page on the right hand side. I think it would maybe better at the bottom of the page.
If by at the bottom you mean below both columns.. It's possible but it would require some different styling possibly throwing off the L&F. If you mean keeping it on the right column but at the bottom.. It's not really possible (well at least not possible without using a slew of tables).
2) In the Updated Libraries section, maybe it would be better for the library name to occupy a line on its own? i.e.
Graph Library: Introduced several new algorithms and improved existing algorithms: + <http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/libs/graph/doc/floyd_warshall_shortest.html>floyd warshall all pairs shortest paths, from Lauren Foutz and Scott Hill. +etc
To me it makes it easier to scan the list to find the library you are looking for.
OK, I'll see what I can do to increase the visibility of the library names.
3) Finally (I'm not sure about this idea.. but would be interested to see whether it is an improvement or not).
Viewing with a browser width of about 800px (half my desktop width).. at the bottom of the page the text of the left has 5 or 6 words per line.. but there is unused space on the right of the page.
Would it be possible to allow the text on the left to flow across to the right side of the page if there is space available?
It's possible, but it would jumble the document structure in such a way as to make it painful for alternate viewers. Currently the structure is: ( (section-text sidebar) (section-text sidebar) (section-text sidebar) ). That allows people using lynx (http://tinyurl.com/6zcl6)[1], blind screen audio readers, and other handicapped users to still read the page. To implement the suggestion I would have to change the doc structure to: ( (sidebar section-text) (sidebar section-text) (sidebar section-text) ). Clearly not a desirable arrangement. [1] http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fredshift-software.c... -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
At 16:51 10/04/2005, you wrote:
Mark Blewett wrote:
At 10:23 10/04/2005, Dave Abrahams wrote:
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
It's very unusual, but I _think_ I like it overall. I think the right column could use some reorganization; the groupings don't feel very natural to me. But I can't come up with a better suggestion right now ;-) I like it too.
Thank you all :-)
No thank you :-) Having tried a small amount of html authoring myself in the past, I know its difficult writing to be both compliant and displayed reasonably in all sorts of browsers... it should be simple, but in reality its certainly not.
I think is slightly unusual (in web design) to have the links on the right hand side, but to me it actually makes reading the content (the text on the left) more natural and book like. A few minor (and possibly subjective) thoughts; 1) To me it seems a bit strange having the revised / copyright / license / icons bit halfway down the page on the right hand side. I think it would maybe better at the bottom of the page.
If by at the bottom you mean below both columns.. It's possible but it would require some different styling possibly throwing off the L&F. If you mean keeping it on the right column but at the bottom.. It's not really possible (well at least not possible without using a slew of tables).
I was thinking at the bottom of both columns as a footer. Would it just be a case not much more than moving the <div> block to an outer scope? Looking again, I think part of the reason I was thinking this is that the navigation for support / other resources / official branch / unofficial branch sites is grouped (via the shading to the right / bottom) with the revised / copyright. Just a thought, but perhaps separating this into a "box" for the navigation (like the prior links on the page) and a new "box" for the revised / copyright section etc.. perhaps without the border to indicate its not a set of links.
2) In the Updated Libraries section, maybe it would be better for the library name to occupy a line on its own? i.e. Graph Library: Introduced several new algorithms and improved existing algorithms: + <http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/libs/graph/doc/floyd_warshall_shortest.html>floyd warshall all pairs shortest paths, from Lauren Foutz and Scott Hill. +etc To me it makes it easier to scan the list to find the library you are looking for.
OK, I'll see what I can do to increase the visibility of the library names.
3) Finally (I'm not sure about this idea.. but would be interested to see whether it is an improvement or not). Viewing with a browser width of about 800px (half my desktop width).. at the bottom of the page the text of the left has 5 or 6 words per line.. but there is unused space on the right of the page. Would it be possible to allow the text on the left to flow across to the right side of the page if there is space available?
It's possible, but it would jumble the document structure in such a way as to make it painful for alternate viewers. Currently the structure is: ( (section-text sidebar) (section-text sidebar) (section-text sidebar) ). That allows people using lynx (http://tinyurl.com/6zcl6)[1], blind screen audio readers, and other handicapped users to still read the page. To implement the suggestion I would have to change the doc structure to: ( (sidebar section-text) (sidebar section-text) (sidebar section-text) ). Clearly not a desirable arrangement.
[1] http://www.delorie.com/web/lynxview.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fredshift-software.c...
Good point, I agree its clearly not a desirable arrangement. Regards Mark
Mark Blewett wrote:
At 16:51 10/04/2005, I wrote:
If by at the bottom you mean below both columns.. It's possible but it would require some different styling possibly throwing off the L&F. If you mean keeping it on the right column but at the bottom.. It's not really possible (well at least not possible without using a slew of tables).
I was thinking at the bottom of both columns as a footer. Would it just be a case not much more than moving the <div> block to an outer scope?
I'll have the version history page up shortly. It has the footer across the bottom arrangement so it show if that can work or not. [...]
Just a thought, but perhaps separating this into a "box" for the navigation (like the prior links on the page) and a new "box" for the revised / copyright section etc.. perhaps without the border to indicate its not a set of links.
A sidebar for the copy info, without the shadow and lines might work. [...] -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:23:02 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News".
Good idea, although I think we should maintain a release_history page so we can get back to the release summaries. Every so often I've found it handy to refer to a release or so back. Also I think the history helps new people see that boost isn't some 'flash-in-the-pan' open source project.
It's very unusual, but I _think_ I like it overall. I think the right column could use some reorganization; the groupings don't feel very natural to me. But I can't come up with a better suggestion right now ;-)
Overall I like it as well, although I'm not certain we are all seeing the same thing ;-) I tried this in a few different Linux browsers at different widths and got 'interesting' results. Rather than trying to explain what I'm seeing I took a couple snapshots and put them up on the Wiki: http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?FrontPage_Des... So is the right hand pane supposed to be 'double wide' or single wide? Also on the mozilla based browsers when the window is wide the search/contribute boxes get obscurred. BTW, thanks for working on this -- in case I haven't already said it. Jeff
Jeff Garland wrote:
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 05:23:02 -0400, David Abrahams wrote
Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News".
Good idea, although I think we should maintain a release_history page so we can get back to the release summaries. Every so often I've found it handy to refer to a release or so back. Also I think the history helps new people see that boost isn't some 'flash-in-the-pan' open source project.
There's already a page that has the "complete" history. It's just not in the mainline Boost tree, but in the sandbox. Daryle was waiting for a convenient time to add that page in.
Overall I like it as well, although I'm not certain we are all seeing the same thing ;-)
I can guarantee we aren't.. Browsers are annoyingly different :-(
I tried this in a few different Linux browsers at different widths and got 'interesting' results. Rather than trying to explain what I'm seeing I took a couple snapshots and put them up on the Wiki:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?FrontPage_Des...
Thank you.. This helps immensely!
So is the right hand pane supposed to be 'double wide' or single wide?
It's supposed to be double wide. But the conflicting interpretations of the CSS box model and the old box model may make for varied results ;-)
Also on the mozilla based browsers when the window is wide the search/contribute boxes get obscurred.
Which Mozilla browsers? The usual one I test with, Firefox, doesn't have that problem.
BTW, thanks for working on this -- in case I haven't already said it.
Don't know if you have.. You welcome. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
On Sun, 10 Apr 2005 11:04:39 -0500, Rene Rivera wrote
There's already a page that has the "complete" history. It's just not in the mainline Boost tree, but in the sandbox. Daryle was waiting for a convenient time to add that page in.
Hmm, seems like now would be fine....
I tried this in a few different Linux browsers at different widths and got 'interesting' results. Rather than trying to explain what I'm seeing I took a couple snapshots and put them up on the Wiki:
http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl?FrontPage_Des...
Thank you.. This helps immensely!
So is the right hand pane supposed to be 'double wide' or single wide?
It's supposed to be double wide. But the conflicting interpretations of the CSS box model and the old box model may make for varied results ;-)
Yeah, I agree this stinks :-(
Also on the mozilla based browsers when the window is wide the search/contribute boxes get obscurred.
Which Mozilla browsers? The usual one I test with, Firefox, doesn't have that problem.
Well the one I snapshot was Galeon 1.3.12 (Linux). But the same thing happened with Firefox 0.9.1 (Linux). Same problem with Mozilla 1.6 (Linux). I finally fired up my windows machine and with Firefox 1.0.2 and IE 6 it looks correct. So it would appear this problem is limited to older versions of Mozilla. Jeff
I like this. Firefox 1.0.2 and IE6 at 1600 x 1200 on both 22 inch screen and 19 inch screens. The only thing that seems odd is that the 'menu' items on the right seem to be slightly smaller font. For the page, I suspect it could be the same size? There seems to be lots of white space on the standard aspect ratio, and one can get a single word per line by chosing a very tall window ! but this is the users choice. (Google appears above "Powered by") Thanks for your considerable work on this. Paul | -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of David Abrahams | Sent: 10 April 2005 10:23 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: [boost] Re: [website] Fluid layout. | | Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com> writes: | | > OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid | layout. Since | > no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with | his idea of | > two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid | the right is | > fixed. | > | > I also removed everything except the latest release | information. For the | > simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. | > After all anything older than the latest version isn't | "Latest News". | > | > http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm | | It's very unusual, but I _think_ I like it overall. I think the right | column could use some reorganization; the groupings don't feel very | natural to me. But I can't come up with a better suggestion | right now ;-) | | | -- | Dave Abrahams | Boost Consulting | www.boost-consulting.com | | _______________________________________________ | Unsubscribe & other changes: | http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost |
Paul A Bristow wrote:
I like this.
:-)
Firefox 1.0.2 and IE6 at 1600 x 1200 on both 22 inch screen and 19 inch screens.
The only thing that seems odd is that the 'menu' items on the right seem to be slightly smaller font.
They are slightly smaller, they've been that way from the start.
For the page, I suspect it could be the same size?
It could.. What do other's think?
(Google appears above "Powered by")
Intentionally; I like that arrangement more than the one Google uses in the equivalent logo. It emphasizes "Google" more than the "Powered by".
Thanks for your considerable work on this.
Welcome.. But it would be so much less work if IE didn't exist ;-) -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
| -----Original Message----- | From: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org | [mailto:boost-bounces@lists.boost.org] On Behalf Of Rene Rivera | Sent: 10 April 2005 19:51 | To: boost@lists.boost.org | Subject: Re: [boost] Re: [website] Fluid layout. | | > The only thing that seems odd is that the 'menu' items on the right | > seem to be slightly smaller font. | | They are slightly smaller, they've been that way from the start. | | > For the page, I suspect it could be the same size? | | It could.. What do other's think? Seems little point having it so _nearly_ the same size. | > (Google appears above "Powered by") | It emphasizes "Google" more than the "Powered by". Just Google "Powered."? And I strongly prefer the 'reading bit' on the left and the columns on the right, for the reasons already explained - 'auto-eye-flyback' to the left margin. Chinese/Arabic readers may have different eye programming ;-) Paul PS | > Thanks for your considerable work on this. | | Welcome.. But it would be so much less work if IE didn't exist ;-) Indeed - the Eu Regulators would achieve much more if they insisted that Microsoft IE conformed to the standard than separating it. As a result, most of use need IE6 to read MS pages, and another like Firefox that works properly for the rest :-(( (The work involved would be a much bigger 'fine' than any imposed so far for unfair commercial practices).
Hi Rene, On Apr 10, 2005, at 7:02 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News".
That new layout really does a lot for the design. More than any of the other attempts, this one had me saying "that's nice" the second I opened the page. I know this sort of design is very subjective, but this version hits all the subconscious right places for me. Michael
That looks better on my 1280x1024 desktop, but it is really strange to see two-column links on the right side (not too standard solution). And IMO It's better to add borders to each group, otherwise shadows look confusing. P.S. Thanks for fixing the links bug on IE6. -- Pavel Chikulaev
Rene Rivera wrote:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News". http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
I just glanced at the layout and strongly suggest to move the navigation bar to the left side. The webpage is adhering to W3C standards and should follow usability standards, too. At least I don't know many websites with a right-handed navigation bar? Boris
On Mon, 11 Apr 2005 01:54:37 +0300, Boris wrote
Rene Rivera wrote:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News". http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
I just glanced at the layout and strongly suggest to move the navigation bar to the left side. The webpage is adhering to W3C standards and should follow usability standards, too. At least I don't know many websites with a right-handed navigation bar?
I'm actually starting to wonder if a 3 column arrangement might be better. Some of the key links would be grouped on the left -- search can be pushed to the right -- news in the center. A really radical design would be to hotlink library docs from the left column. See http://www.w3.org/ for an example of this sort of layout -- just brainstorming here... Jeff
Boris wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News". http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
I just glanced at the layout and strongly suggest to move the navigation bar to the left side. The webpage is adhering to W3C standards and should follow usability standards, too. At least I don't know many websites with a right-handed navigation bar?
I like it at the right. I don't see any reason why it can't be in the right. Could you give us a link to a W3C reference that says navigation bars should be in the left? Hey, nice work, Rene! Cheers, -- Joel de Guzman http://www.boost-consulting.com http://spirit.sf.net
At 00:06 11/04/2005, you wrote:
Boris wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News". http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
I just glanced at the layout and strongly suggest to move the navigation bar to the left side. The webpage is adhering to W3C standards and should follow usability standards, too. At least I don't know many websites with a right-handed navigation bar?
I like it at the right. I don't see any reason why it can't be in the right. Could you give us a link to a W3C reference that says navigation bars should be in the left?
I agree (about navigation on the right), and personally I'm starting to favour it. Ok its not the norm but the main reason for me is it makes the content (ie the important stuff) easier to read because its more like a book, ie when you get to the end of a line, you move to the left margin.. not some point part way across. Maybe its because there are too many badly designed sites out there or maybe I'm more used to traditional mediums. Regards Mark
Mark Blewett wrote:
At 00:06 11/04/2005, you wrote:
Boris wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News". http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
I just glanced at the layout and strongly suggest to move the navigation bar to the left side. The webpage is adhering to W3C standards and should follow usability standards, too. At least I don't know many websites with a right-handed navigation bar?
I like it at the right. I don't see any reason why it can't be in the right. Could you give us a link to a W3C reference that says navigation bars should be in the left?
I agree (about navigation on the right), and personally I'm starting to favour it.
Ok its not the norm but the main reason for me is it makes the content (ie the important stuff) easier to read because its more like a book, ie when you get to the end of a line, you move to the left margin.. not some point part way across.
That's precisely the intent.
Maybe its because there are too many badly designed sites out there or maybe I'm more used to traditional mediums.
Momentum. The left menu was one of the first layouts used because it was the easiest to get working correctly in the old browsers. And since Boris asked... http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/ http://activestate.com/Products/ActivePerl/ http://articulatebabble.org/ http://minimsft.blogspot.com/ http://www.neonepiphany.com/ http://retrovirus.com/brunch/ http://csszengarden.com/ And of course many of the CSS Zen Garden designs.. http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=157/157.css http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=156/156.css http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=155/155.css http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=154/154.css http://csszengarden.com/?cssfile=153/153.css --grafik
Joel wrote:
Boris wrote:
Rene Rivera wrote:
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
I also removed everything except the latest release information. For the simple reason that more than that make the page unnecessarily long. After all anything older than the latest version isn't "Latest News". http://redshift-software.com/~grafik/boost/index.htm
I just glanced at the layout and strongly suggest to move the navigation bar to the left side. The webpage is adhering to W3C standards and should follow usability standards, too. At least I don't know many websites with a right-handed navigation bar?
I like it at the right. I don't see any reason why it can't be in the right. Could you give us a link to a W3C reference that says navigation bars should be in the left?
While I don't know of any clear recommendation to put a navigation bar not on the right side in my opinion it violates Jakob Nielsen's rule "Do the same as everyone else" (see #10 of "Ten Good Deeds in Web Design" at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html). There have been some links posted to websites that have the navigation on the right side. However I would rather follow the mainstream. Look at all the explorer-style windows in your operating system: Navigation is always on the top and on the left. If you really want to make an exception and put the navigation bar on the right side you need a strong reason to come up with something unusual. Boris
Boris wrote:
While I don't know of any clear recommendation to put a navigation bar not on the right side in my opinion it violates Jakob Nielsen's rule "Do the same as everyone else" (see #10 of "Ten Good Deeds in Web Design" at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html). There have been some links posted to websites that have the navigation on the right side. However I would rather follow the mainstream. Look at all the explorer-style windows in your operating system: Navigation is always on the top and on the left. If you really want to make an exception and put the navigation bar on the right side you need a strong reason to come up with something unusual.
What a specious argument for conformity :-( But since you are referencing Jakob Nielsen.. I suggest you take a look at the website for his company "Nielson Norman Group" (http://www.nngroup.com/). Where you will notice that text on the left with navigation on the right is the norm. Here's one example.. http://www.nngroup.com/reports/about/ "About Us" (presenting company info on corporate websites): Usability Research Report from Nielsen Norman Group -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
If we take 'navigation' to mean 'web-site navigation' then the Jakob Nielsen site places the navigation links along the top, from left-to-right. The right-hand side is used for links to related stories, or what could be called 'web navigation.' On Apr 11, 2005, at 8:07 AM, Rene Rivera wrote:
Boris wrote:
While I don't know of any clear recommendation to put a navigation bar not on the right side in my opinion it violates Jakob Nielsen's rule "Do the same as everyone else" (see #10 of "Ten Good Deeds in Web Design" at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html). There have been some links posted to websites that have the navigation on the right side. However I would rather follow the mainstream. Look at all the explorer-style windows in your operating system: Navigation is always on the top and on the left. If you really want to make an exception and put the navigation bar on the right side you need a strong reason to come up with something unusual.
What a specious argument for conformity :-(
But since you are referencing Jakob Nielsen.. I suggest you take a look at the website for his company "Nielson Norman Group" (http://www.nngroup.com/). Where you will notice that text on the left with navigation on the right is the norm. Here's one example..
http://www.nngroup.com/reports/about/ "About Us" (presenting company info on corporate websites): Usability Research Report from Nielsen Norman Group
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Rene Rivera wrote:
Boris wrote:
While I don't know of any clear recommendation to put a navigation bar not on the right side in my opinion it violates Jakob Nielsen's rule "Do the same as everyone else" (see #10 of "Ten Good Deeds in Web Design" at http://www.useit.com/alertbox/991003.html). There have been some links posted to websites that have the navigation on the right side. However I would rather follow the mainstream. Look at all the explorer-style windows in your operating system: Navigation is always on the top and on the left. If you really want to make an exception and put the navigation bar on the right side you need a strong reason to come up with something unusual.
What a specious argument for conformity :-(
But since you are referencing Jakob Nielsen.. I suggest you take a look at the website for his company "Nielson Norman Group" (http://www.nngroup.com/). Where you will notice that text on the left with navigation on the right is the norm. Here's one example..
http://www.nngroup.com/reports/about/ "About Us" (presenting company info on corporate websites): Usability Research Report from Nielsen Norman Group
It doesn't make sense to create long lists of links we throw at each other to prove that one layout is more mainstream than the other one. I don't want to abuse this mailing list neither to talk about webdesign. I propose you go on with your design and maybe ask for feedback in news:comp.infosystems.authoring.www.site-design - I'll step out as I actually should go on with the network library anyway. Boris
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
There's a lot I like, and I appreciate your attention to this effort. There are, however, some things I don't: - The two-column navbar takes a lot of space. If your browser is narrow for whatever reason, the navbar dominates. - If your browser window is sufficiently narrow, the section based approach separates the sections of the navbar from one another. Therefore, instead of this layout: text1 navbar1 text1 text2 navbar2 text2 text3 navbar3 text3 I'd like this layout: text1 navbar1 text1 navbar2 navbar3 text2 text2 text3 text3 - Why not put some of the navbar links in drop-down hotspots or buttons across the top? That would reduce the number of links that need to be presented in the right side navbar. - If you keep the two-column navbar, then the Boost/Documentation/Mailing Lists list box for search should be alongside the search input box. It looks odd with the search input, list box, and Google logo stacked one above the other. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
OK I've done more changes/improvements. It's now a fluid layout. Since no one except Dave had suggestions on what to I went with his idea of two (mostly equal) columns. In this case the left is fluid the right is fixed.
There's a lot I like, and I appreciate your attention to this effort. There are, however, some things I don't:
- The two-column navbar takes a lot of space. If your browser is narrow for whatever reason, the navbar dominates.
That it does.. I'm attempting to implement a minimum width which would help that (it's not easy with just CSS). But that would introduce previous problems re: left-right scrolling.
- If your browser window is sufficiently narrow, the section based approach separates the sections of the navbar from one another. Therefore, instead of this layout:
text1 navbar1 text1
text2 navbar2 text2
text3 navbar3 text3
I'd like this layout:
text1 navbar1 text1 navbar2 navbar3 text2 text2
text3 text3
Unfortunately that layout removes the topical connection of the navbar/sidebar to the text.
- Why not put some of the navbar links in drop-down hotspots or buttons across the top? That would reduce the number of links that need to be presented in the right side navbar.
Unless it's something that can be applied to other pages, i.e. the version history page, I would not put it at the top. For example that's what I did for my site: http://redshift-software.com
- If you keep the two-column navbar, then the Boost/Documentation/Mailing Lists list box for search should be alongside the search input box. It looks odd with the search input, list box, and Google logo stacked one above the other.
Yes. The version on my disk has the search box taking the full sidebar space. Not sure about the Google logo, I'll try it above and see. Something else I'm trying is to see having a different proportion of the text vs. sidebar is fitting for a larger set of people's screens, default or otherwise. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Rene Rivera <grafik.list@redshift-software.com>
- The two-column navbar takes a lot of space. If your browser is narrow for whatever reason, the navbar dominates.
That it does.. I'm attempting to implement a minimum width which would help that (it's not easy with just CSS). But that would introduce previous problems re: left-right scrolling.
I suppose there's some reason you only want to use CSS, but it seems to be overly limiting in cases like this. Are there other techniques that would produce the desired result that are currently disallowed? If folks new they could get X by permitting technology/technique Y, they might agree.
- If your browser window is sufficiently narrow, the section based approach separates the sections of the navbar from one another. Therefore, instead of this layout:
text1 navbar1 text1
text2 navbar2 text2
text3 navbar3 text3
I'd like this layout:
text1 navbar1 text1 navbar2 navbar3 text2 text2
text3 text3
Unfortunately that layout removes the topical connection of the navbar/sidebar to the text.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that much connection now. Only the Groups/Contribute navbar links seem appropriate to the Participation text. The rest are only loosely, at best, connected. How about this approach: Boost navbar1 Boost navbar3 Participation Participation Groups Contribute Groups Contribute Latest News IOW, move what I originally labeled navbar2 beneath the small amount of text in the Participation section, rather than keeping them in the right column. Then, all remaining navbar links can be in the right column and could, quite possibly, be managed in one column. That approach would closely tie the Groups/Contribute links to the Participate text and leave all of the other navbar links in a single, less dominant right hand column.
- Why not put some of the navbar links in drop-down hotspots or buttons across the top? That would reduce the number of links that need to be presented in the right side navbar.
Unless it's something that can be applied to other pages, i.e. the version history page, I would not put it at the top. For example that's what I did for my site: http://redshift-software.com
OK.
- If you keep the two-column navbar, then the Boost/Documentation/Mailing Lists list box for search should be alongside the search input box. It looks odd with the search input, list box, and Google logo stacked one above the other.
Yes. The version on my disk has the search box taking the full sidebar space. Not sure about the Google logo, I'll try it above and see.
Your update has fixed it for me.
Something else I'm trying is to see having a different proportion of the text vs. sidebar is fitting for a larger set of people's screens, default or otherwise.
Perhaps my layout suggestion will help. -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Rob Stewart wrote:
I suppose there's some reason you only want to use CSS, but it seems to be overly limiting in cases like this.
Because it allows the most flexibility. And it's generally good to have separation of concerns. In the HTML world that means CSS for presentation, X/HTML for structure. But more importantly it's much easier using CSS to support multiple rendering devices. For example text only (lynx, TDD, etc).
Are there other techniques that would produce the desired result that are currently disallowed? If folks new they could get X by permitting technology/technique Y, they might agree.
I should have really said.. That it's hard to only use CSS because of the totally broken Microsoft Internet Explorer. It's actually easy with only Gecko (Firefox et all), Konkeror, Safary, etc.
I'm sorry, but I don't see that much connection now.
Some connection is better than no connection. As Dave said about the arrangement, it's not great but he could not think of a better one. So an arrangement of the sidebar links that improves the connections is certainly welcomed.
IOW, move what I originally labeled navbar2 beneath the small amount of text in the Participation section, rather than keeping them in the right column. Then, all remaining navbar links can be in the right column and could, quite possibly, be managed in one column.
That would break the natural flow of the text on the left. And would also break the visual balance between the left and right sides. -- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - Grafik/jabber.org
participants (11)
-
Boris -
David Abrahams -
Jeff Garland -
Joel -
Kon Lovett -
Mark Blewett -
Michael van der Westhuizen -
Paul A Bristow -
Pavel Chikulaev -
Rene Rivera -
Rob Stewart