[wiki] A New Textbook

zero · 2008-08-12 20:27:08

Hi Stef, I’ve added padding. I’ve also indented code by 1em for you to look at. I think it looks bad. It would look better if indented more, but because of the larger font-size most codes now have a scroll-bar across the bottom anyway and I don’t want it to happen to more of them. I had it before so there was hardly any horizontal scrolling because it’s annoying having to scroll when you’re trying to read something. So it’s there for a short time and then I’ll put it back to line up with the rest, unless everybody screams and hollers for me to leave it indented ;)

I also added more space below the code. Any more and it looks odd when in the context of a ‘normal’ page with paragraphs and stuff and the odd bit of code in it, eg this

uli · 2008-08-12 20:32:18

zero wrote:

Mac users, which monospace font do you normally use?

Speaking for myself: Monaco. I don’t like looking at small serif fonts (Courier) on the screen.

zero · 2008-08-12 20:39:21

OK, monaco added infront of courier for the font-family. How is it for size?

uli · 2008-08-12 20:46:52

zero wrote:

I’ve added padding. I’ve also indented code by 1em for you to look at. I think it looks bad. It would look better if indented more, but because of the larger font-size most codes now have a scroll-bar across the bottom

Why increase code font size? I’d use a size approximate to the normal text. Scrollbars gone, good-looking indentation possible.

Edit: Our posts crossed.
I darn like Monaco better! Yup!
I firebugged Monaco code size to 0.95em as almost identical to normal font size.

Last edited by uli (2008-08-12 20:50:38)

zero · 2008-08-12 20:54:54

uli wrote:

Why increase code font size?

Because they’re all telling me it’s too small.

I’d use a size approximate to the normal text. Scrollbars gone, good-looking indentation possible.

What do you mean by good looking indentation, uli?

Edit: Our posts crossed.
I darn like Monaco better! Yup!
I firebugged Monaco code size to 0.95em as almost identical to normal font size.

Hang on, does that mean it is 0.95em or 0.95 of 1.3em which I’ve set? Is there a way to make this work cross-browser?

Edit: or you mean monaco is like 0.95 of body font size. If it is , it’s OK then?

Last edited by zero (2008-08-12 20:56:46)

ruud · 2008-08-12 21:26:56

Code font size is too big now. As big as the H3, bigger than normal text. At around 1.1em (instead of 1.3em) it would look comparable to normal text here (Firefox 3, Linux). Pre.code padding can probably be reduced from 1em to 0.5 em.

I think the attributes (definition list!) and examples, which currently are formatted as H3, would look better in sans-serif, just as the normal text, and in a smaller font size (100%).

The horizontal line below the H2 causes it to be separated from the text that follows. It’s almost as if the H2 belongs to the text that precedes it. If this were a real book and the H2 started on a fresh page, then it would look great, but I don’t think it works well here.

The links in the footer need more contrasting colors. They’re currently hard to read.

I see underlined words. I want to click them. They don’t react (not links). Why are they underlined?

uli · 2008-08-12 21:35:04

Sorry for the confusion, Peter.
I set your 1.3em to 0.95, in order to make Verdana and Monaco look halfway identical in size.
I’ve set all my browser prefs for both monospaced and proportional fonts’ sizes to identical values, and no matter whether viewed on FF3, SAF2 or OP9.2, the code font is huge, and Monaco adds a little in size compared to Courier.

zero · 2008-08-12 21:58:25

LOL! I’m using linux with firefox, opera, ie so that’s why I didn’t want to go higher than 1.3, but the others are saying 1.3em is good. I can’t please all of you!

The h2 style is built in and I like it. I know what you mean about separation from text below but can you live with it, ruud. Nobody else has complained. It looks fine on non-tag pages, imho, and on tag pages it separates sections well. It is the first time I’ve used this style too and I was always of the same mind as you about an underline separating the heading from the text it belongs to. But I’ve grown used to it and like it now. It seems well accepted on many other web sites I’ve seen too.

The underlined words are just in the code. That’s how Bert did ‘em and I’ve continued. You may want to click them but soon learn it’s the coloured one’s that are clickable. They are the only underlines on the site and the links aren’t underlined so although it’s unusual, I don’t think it hurts. I could do a search and replace on these though but what to: bold or italic?

And now the H3 instead of definition list. Again that’s how Bert did ‘em, so I followed suit. (Sorry, Bert, not meaning to blame you because your solution seemed as good as any at the time to me). We know about plugin updating and the def list plugins don’t seem that popular so may drop by the wayside leaving us with funny styling. The h3 followed by a paragraph groups those together correctly. Problem with making it sans-serif there is that all other headings are serif so h3 would look out of place in other contexts. Changing all the attributes would mean altering every tag page manually because search and replace wouldn’t work. And just to put things into context, here’s the code from existing Textbook similar to all definition lists, just for the sake of making it look right. This ones for section_list:

; <code><b>[[Attributes_Cross_Reference#sections|sections]]="</b><em>section name(s)</em><b>"</b></code> : Comma-separated list of section names to include in the list, displayed in specified order (unless overriden with <code><b>sort</b></code> attribute). Default is unset, leading to an unrestricted list of <em>all</em> sections.

A right mess.

There’s a problem with h3 in that no extra formatting like bold or italic is allowed. An h3 just renders it exactly as it is. So I can see that attributes should be done better, but there’s no simple solution. It’s workable for the time being. Perhaps it could be altered bit by bit later on?

Edit: Hey! This is comment 101!

Last edited by zero (2008-08-12 21:59:15)

zero · 2008-08-13 10:04:06

I’ve changed the attributes from h3 to h5 so that styling can be added to it. It will only be used for tags, hopefully. I tried sans-serif but it was inconsistent with the rest and looked bad, so it’s 1.1em serif.

I’ve also added links to Glossary and Attributes Cross Reference in all tag articles, seeing as there were links before. Also made all tag articles more consistent. That’s all I’m doing on tags.

Bloke · 2008-08-13 10:13:18

Sweeeeet. Back on this page, under ‘Attributes’, in FF3 it looks like this:

id=“The id assigned to the article you are looking for comments status for”
Article ID

What’s the ‘Article ID’ related to, in the <p> under the <h5>? Is that teling me that the thing in quotes above should be an article ID? Seems a bit ‘stuck on’ now under all that bold stuff. Maybe it just needs punctuation or a couple more words to make it look like it’s not a mistake :-)

Last edited by Bloke (2008-08-13 10:14:24)

zero · 2008-08-13 10:32:26

You’ve picked one of about four articles with similar short descriptions, Stef! Check some other articles and you’ll see that the p does indeed relate to the h5 above it, as it should do semantically, and also I made it ‘stuck on’ so there wasn’t confusion which might occur because of double line spacing and there being a list of attributes.

I don’t know what article ID means either. In case anyone thinks I should now be an expert on tags, I’m afraid I just copy, paste, alter, see code and letters and haven’t tried to understand any of it. Just wanted to get a job done.

hakjoon · 2008-08-13 13:43:21

Code tag sizing etc is looking good here. I’m noticing some weird vertical alignment issues which I think are due to the paragraph spacing being too close to the line height. Might just need to bump up spacing between paragraphs. Here’s a pic:

zero · 2008-08-13 14:07:28

Thanks for that, Patrick. Somehow it must have changed amongst all the changes. It’s back to normal now.

hakjoon · 2008-08-13 14:16:19

Much better.

Regarding getting everything on the server and etc. I’m going to be away this weekend are you cool with waiting until next week to do that stuff? Don’t really want to dump you on the server if I won’t be around to help.

Last edited by hakjoon (2008-08-13 14:16:50)

zero · 2008-08-13 14:34:53

Sure. If you can let me know the server paths such as users/textbook/public_html , I can get the paths ready in the one or two files that need it. Then it’s a case of ftp-ing it across. Alternatively, after I’ve changed the paths I can email the whole thing to you with instructions of what goes where (very easy) and you could install it at your leisure.

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#91 2008-08-12 20:27:08

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#92 2008-08-12 20:32:18

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#93 2008-08-12 20:39:21

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#94 2008-08-12 20:46:52

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#95 2008-08-12 20:54:54

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#96 2008-08-12 21:26:56

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#97 2008-08-12 21:35:04

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#98 2008-08-12 21:58:25

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#99 2008-08-13 10:04:06

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#100 2008-08-13 10:13:18

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#101 2008-08-13 10:32:26

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#102 2008-08-13 13:43:21

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#103 2008-08-13 14:07:28

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#104 2008-08-13 14:16:19

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

#105 2008-08-13 14:34:53

Re: [wiki] A New Textbook

Board footer