[OT] Re: Redesign of dlang.org

[w0rp via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 28 July 2014 at 07:29:48 UTC, Gary Willoughby wrote:
> On Sunday, 27 July 2014 at 20:43:49 UTC, w0rp wrote:
>> You absolutely must change your content to fit it into smaller 
>> screens. You cannot send a massive cargo plane to an airfield 
>> which doesn't have large enough runways. You send smaller 
>> planes to carry your freight to that airport. If you have a 
>> table where the length of a symbol expands a single column too 
>> wide to fit the second column's content on a phone screen 
>> comfortably, you have to at the very least not use a table on 
>> the phone screens.
>
> This is total nonsense.

You wouldn't fit a very large page of sample code on a slide if
you wanted to show an example at a presentation, unless your
point was to show how bad it is to write too much code. You have
to write your sample such that it fits on the slide, so you will
remove braces you might otherwise use religiously, etc. It's not
total nonsense, it's common sense.

>> Regarding display at very large widths. that is something 
>> which can be adjusted later. It's far easier to focus on 
>> fitting content into smaller screen sizes first and then build 
>> outwards, than it is to design everything for large screen 
>> sizes first and then compact inwards. You can always expand 
>> column widths and provide more non-essential but supllemental 
>> content afterwards so the space is used effectively.
>
> No, the current design is too small, period. Everything about 
> it is too small. The fonts, the column widths, the logo, etc. 
> Screens are getting bigger and screen resolutions are 
> increasing. Even tablets have 1080p+ resolutions.

I just explained that I was working with smaller screens and
working upwards, because it's a far more effective way to design
for all devices. This is why elements on the page currently fit
smaller screens better. I haven't taken the time to make
effective use of space for larger screen sizes yet. I'm well
aware of the 1080p resolution, because the layout fits well on a
1080p screen. The upper limit on screen widths I have worked for
so far is 1200 pixels, and slightly above that, which follows the
Bootstrap screen sizes.

>
>> That said, there should be an upper limit, where beyond a 
>> given width expanding to fill it entirely would not be a good 
>> idea. You are always contrained by an upper limit on how long 
>> a line of text should be. This doesn't have to be as small as 
>> 80 or 90 characters, as there are some studies which show that 
>> somewhere as high as 100 or 110 characters per line can be 
>> read effectively.
>
> Agreed but you are way below that sweet spot.

That is not true. The largest screen width accommodates about 95
CPL for paragraphs.

>
>> Again, if you would like to contribute something of value, 
>> please do not hesitate to do so.
>
> I am contributing but you are completely ignoring me and 
> attacking what i'm saying. I've been a professional web 
> application developer for years and have a lot of experience 
> with design and UX. Everybody here is completely ignoring that 
> fact! You don't even understand branding. So what's the point 
> of me trying to contribute?

Your comments are being ignored because your comments have been
nothing short of a personal attack on myself. If you wish to make
a serious contribution to a project, you should learn to use more
tact, and speak to objective points of argument. A meaningful
contribution would consist of contributing art assets, writing
CSS, drafting mock-ups for improvements, etc. Thus far, you have
failed to do any of this.