Prev: [Samba] Samba4 idmap operations
Next: RE : RE : RE : Example of command ". / Setup / provision"
From: Robert LeBlanc on 19 May 2010 13:20
I really love how all this criticism comes from someone who's website looks
like something out of the 90's. Animated gifs are 20 years old now! The
design on your pages suck, it is not easy on the eyes, I'm not drawn to what
is important. Yes I can read it (the text is legible), but just barely
because the layout does not flow and I can't find anything. There is more to
design than just the text px (which I highly discourage as well). Using too
many fonts, having unbalanced portions of the page, etc.

Please before you go slamming someone else's work, fix your own site so you
have some credibility!

Robert LeBlanc
Life Sciences & Undergraduate Education Computer Support
Brigham Young University


On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Felix Miata <mrmazda(a)earthlink.net> wrote:

> On 2010/05/19 09:12 (GMT-0400) David Eisner composed:
>
> > On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Felix Miata <mrmazda(a)earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >> Not even close. Arguably it's attractive, as long as you don't actually
> need
> >> to use it or read anything on it. Pray your eyes are as good as a 15
> year old
> >> or you aren't using a high resolution device to access it if so.
>
> > I like the new design. I'm not particularly young, and I don't have a
> > particularly fancy monitor. I do wear glasses, though.
>
> Many people, regardless of age, even with correction, don't see
> particularly
> well, but quite well enough to use web pages that respect their defaults.
> These aren't the only people now being disrespected. All, regardless of
> eyesight, should be respected. Web designers as a group either don't
> understand the meaning of that word, or don't think it a necessary part of
> designing for the web.
>
> http://fm.no-ip.com/Inet/shame.html
>
> > The CSS sizes the fonts in px, though, which is a problem.
>
> Exactly.
>
> > The issue
> > isn't that your monitor has too low a resolution, it's that it's "too"
> > high.
>
> Hogwash:
>
> 1-The technology to design web pages with resolution independence is more
> than a decade old. http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/ is a very simple
> example of how it can be done. Apply zoom, or change your default larger or
> smaller to see how well it can work.
>
> 2-High resolution == high quality. Therefore, higher resolution _should_
> mean
> a higher quality web experience. Web fonts are famous for marginal to poor
> quality. That lack of quality is proportional to DPI. The higher the DPI,
> the
> higher the quality, as each character of any given physical size has more
> px
> to be rendered with. My default of 24px has nominally 576 px per character,
> compared to samba's 13px at nominal 169px, which is several orders of
> magnitude higher quality.
>
> 3-A major reason still higher resolution isn't widely available yet is the
> usability factor. Web pages and software are still being designed as if
> people were using display hardware manufactured two decades ago. Were page
> and software designers incorporating resolution independence, even more
> advanced (still higher DPI) hardware to take advantage of it would be here
> already. IOW, hardware technology is being held back by anachronistic
> software and web page design.
>
> > Have you tried Ctrl-+ a few times?
>
> Of course. But it's necessary on virtually every page, because virtually
> every page is designed either without regard to user defaults (in px), or
> by
> setting some base size at a fraction of the defaults (assuming the defaults
> are incorrectly set "too large").
>
> Both behaviors (without regard, and assuming wrongly large) are offensive.
> Ctrl-+ (and minimum font size) are _defensive_ features provided by browser
> makers. Absent an offense, a defense needn't be applied.
>
> Poor legibility, caused primarily by too small fonts, besides being
> offensive, is a widespread usability problem:
>
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html
> --
> "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
> words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)
>
> Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409
>
> Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
> instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: John H Terpstra on 19 May 2010 14:00
On 05/19/2010 09:48 AM, Felix Miata wrote:
> On 2010/05/19 09:12 (GMT-0400) David Eisner composed:
>
>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Felix Miata <mrmazda(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>> Not even close. Arguably it's attractive, as long as you don't actually need
>>> to use it or read anything on it. Pray your eyes are as good as a 15 year old
>>> or you aren't using a high resolution device to access it if so.
>
>> I like the new design. I'm not particularly young, and I don't have a
>> particularly fancy monitor. I do wear glasses, though.
>
> Many people, regardless of age, even with correction, don't see particularly
> well, but quite well enough to use web pages that respect their defaults.
> These aren't the only people now being disrespected. All, regardless of
> eyesight, should be respected. Web designers as a group either don't
> understand the meaning of that word, or don't think it a necessary part of
> designing for the web.
>
> http://fm.no-ip.com/Inet/shame.html

Felix,

I respect your right to have and express your opinions regarding the new
look of the Samba web site. I also wish to point out the great freedom
we have and exercise in the open source community - that of contributing
something better. Remember though, that since we are predominately
consensus-driven, what you I view as best may not meet with unanimous
agreement from the greater community. This gets us back to respect for
the right to disagree.

Seriously, if you have a strong conviction that the Samba project would
be better served with a different look-and-feel, and a more appropriate
logical layout, please pursue your concerns - and contribute at least a
proof of concept.

We are currently short of resources to help manage the web site and the
wiki, so if you have an interest and a passion, and plenty of time on
your hands, please let us see your hand raised to volunteer to get on
with the work needed.

I love feedback - good and bad!

Cheers,
John T.

>> The CSS sizes the fonts in px, though, which is a problem.
>
> Exactly.
>
>> The issue
>> isn't that your monitor has too low a resolution, it's that it's "too"
>> high.
>
> Hogwash:
>
> 1-The technology to design web pages with resolution independence is more
> than a decade old. http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/ is a very simple
> example of how it can be done. Apply zoom, or change your default larger or
> smaller to see how well it can work.
>
> 2-High resolution == high quality. Therefore, higher resolution _should_ mean
> a higher quality web experience. Web fonts are famous for marginal to poor
> quality. That lack of quality is proportional to DPI. The higher the DPI, the
> higher the quality, as each character of any given physical size has more px
> to be rendered with. My default of 24px has nominally 576 px per character,
> compared to samba's 13px at nominal 169px, which is several orders of
> magnitude higher quality.
>
> 3-A major reason still higher resolution isn't widely available yet is the
> usability factor. Web pages and software are still being designed as if
> people were using display hardware manufactured two decades ago. Were page
> and software designers incorporating resolution independence, even more
> advanced (still higher DPI) hardware to take advantage of it would be here
> already. IOW, hardware technology is being held back by anachronistic
> software and web page design.
>
>> Have you tried Ctrl-+ a few times?
>
> Of course. But it's necessary on virtually every page, because virtually
> every page is designed either without regard to user defaults (in px), or by
> setting some base size at a fraction of the defaults (assuming the defaults
> are incorrectly set "too large").
>
> Both behaviors (without regard, and assuming wrongly large) are offensive.
> Ctrl-+ (and minimum font size) are _defensive_ features provided by browser
> makers. Absent an offense, a defense needn't be applied.
>
> Poor legibility, caused primarily by too small fonts, besides being
> offensive, is a widespread usability problem:
>
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html

--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: Felix Miata on 19 May 2010 16:30
On 2010/05/19 12:51 (GMT-0500) John H Terpstra composed:

> I respect your right to have and express your opinions regarding the new
> look of the Samba web site. I also wish to point out the great freedom
> we have and exercise in the open source community - that of contributing
> something better. Remember though, that since we are predominately
> consensus-driven, what you I view as best may not meet with unanimous
> agreement from the greater community. This gets us back to respect for
> the right to disagree.

As usual, there has been no feedback from citing a mirror of my opinion by
one of the few competent usability experts accessible to web researchers.
http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html is not theoretics or
opinion. It's a fact that too small fonts are rampant on the web.

> Seriously, if you have a strong conviction that the Samba project would
> be better served with a different look-and-feel, and a more appropriate
> logical layout, please pursue your concerns - and contribute at least a
> proof of concept.

It's possible I might have had I seen an announcement here that an overhaul
was planned, with lead time provided. In my experience doing so right after
an overhaul is usually pointless.

> We are currently short of resources to help manage the web site and the
> wiki, so if you have an interest and a passion, and plenty of time on
> your hands, please let us see your hand raised to volunteer to get on
> with the work needed.

I've tried it before with other OSS projects, and with the W3 web site, and
it's been mostly a big waste of time. Mandriva's, Novell's & Redhat's
Bugzillas were exceptions in that improvements were made. Complaining to
Mandriva right after helped, but only because patches were expressly invited
that I found time to provide.

I don't have plenty of time. Participating in several beta projects saps up a
large part of my spare time, and that time consumption is compounded by the
OSS websites that support them being hard to use. The other problem is that
the weight of styling is usually so extensive that it's usually painful even
to attempt to offer even small improvements.

All that said, samba.org's CSS is relatively light, so I went ahead and
roughed it out so people get the idea how it could be, and maybe someone with
power to do so and time could take it further in actual application.

http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/sambaorghome.html mainly also touches fonts,
and works decently with default font sizes not far removed from standard. As
default size is increased, the px-fixed widths begin crowding the content.

http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/sambaorghomee.html touches widths, but not
any images, so background images aren't tailored to actual container widths,
but it does emulate the http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/ resolution
independence example provided earlier.

http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/ contains copies of originals, modifieds,
and diffs of html http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/htmldiff.pat, fonts only
css http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/cssdiff.pat, & fonts+widths css
http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/cssdiffe.pat, all of which are unusable
as-is because I removed relative URLs from hrefs & srcs, but serve to point
out changes made.
--
"The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant
words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation)

Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409

Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: Lennart Sorensen on 19 May 2010 16:40
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 04:20:58PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> As usual, there has been no feedback from citing a mirror of my opinion by
> one of the few competent usability experts accessible to web researchers.
> http://www.useit.com/alertbox/designmistakes.html is not theoretics or
> opinion. It's a fact that too small fonts are rampant on the web.
>
> It's possible I might have had I seen an announcement here that an overhaul
> was planned, with lead time provided. In my experience doing so right after
> an overhaul is usually pointless.
>
> I've tried it before with other OSS projects, and with the W3 web site, and
> it's been mostly a big waste of time. Mandriva's, Novell's & Redhat's
> Bugzillas were exceptions in that improvements were made. Complaining to
> Mandriva right after helped, but only because patches were expressly invited
> that I found time to provide.
>
> I don't have plenty of time. Participating in several beta projects saps up a
> large part of my spare time, and that time consumption is compounded by the
> OSS websites that support them being hard to use. The other problem is that
> the weight of styling is usually so extensive that it's usually painful even
> to attempt to offer even small improvements.
>
> All that said, samba.org's CSS is relatively light, so I went ahead and
> roughed it out so people get the idea how it could be, and maybe someone with
> power to do so and time could take it further in actual application.
>
> http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/sambaorghome.html mainly also touches fonts,
> and works decently with default font sizes not far removed from standard. As
> default size is increased, the px-fixed widths begin crowding the content.

Wow that is a lot more readable. The font on some parts of the current
samba.org are tiny and bolded and are very hard to read. Yours is
much better.

> http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/sambaorghomee.html touches widths, but not
> any images, so background images aren't tailored to actual container widths,
> but it does emulate the http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Sites/Ksc/ resolution
> independence example provided earlier.

That has the Releases and Beyond Samba boxes rather misplaced from each
other for some reason. Now very good looking. Other bits may be a
bit improved.

> http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/ contains copies of originals, modifieds,
> and diffs of html http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/htmldiff.pat, fonts only
> css http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/cssdiff.pat, & fonts+widths css
> http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/cssdiffe.pat, all of which are unusable
> as-is because I removed relative URLs from hrefs & srcs, but serve to point
> out changes made.

--
Len Sorensen
--
To unsubscribe from this list go to the following URL and read the
instructions: https://lists.samba.org/mailman/options/samba
From: Volker Lendecke on 19 May 2010 16:40
On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 04:20:58PM -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
> http://fm.no-ip.com/Auth/Tmp/Smb/sambaorghome.html mainly also touches fonts,
> and works decently with default font sizes not far removed from standard. As
> default size is increased, the px-fixed widths begin crowding the content.

Well, this looks at least interesting! I have no clue what
you did, but the result does look nice. In Firefox, when I
Ctrl- - , I get visible frames, but this should be fixable.

Volker
First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5
Prev: [Samba] Samba4 idmap operations
Next: RE : RE : RE : Example of command ". / Setup / provision"