[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       koffice
Subject:    Re: KOffice websites (another possible design)
From:       Jeremy Blosser <jblosser () firinn ! org>
Date:       1999-07-28 20:47:12
[Download RAW message or body]


Are the developers getting sick of this conversation?  I know web design
prolly doesn't interest most of them at all :)  Do we need a koffice-web
list?

Alexander N. Kanaev [alexander.kanaev@interped.su.se] wrote:
> comments:
> - I run at 1152x864 resolution, and the menus till doesn't fit. The leftover
> is the 'supporting Koffice' (hehehe)Maybe collapsable/expandable (what's the
> word?) menus are better? At least they give the choice to go straight where
> you want to, and still see all the possibilities. Sure, it's a problem of
> screen space versus speed... Small screens -> better scroll down, high
> speed -> better click to go to another page. I am of the last ones (OC3
> here), so I definitively vote for an extra page... but I know that for
> people with modems /slow connections it's better not to multiply pages;

Hrm.  Well, if I run the window at 640x480, you can still see the whole
thing with just one pagedn or pageup, and that's just as easy to reach as a
click (I'd say easier, but then I like the keyboard more than the mouse).

I wouldn't want it to get much longer, but I don't really think it's
inordinately long now... I'll poke at it and see if I can make it some
shorter.

> - in IE5, I don't get any black boxes... but the picture(s) at the top are a
> bit confusing. Sure it's something that can be redone any moment, but the
> snapshot from Kword (i presume) looks too much like a button (with the
> 'choose template' text.

I want to redo these (and do some for the sub pages) when I am to get
KOffice installed locally and can take my own shots with this purpose in
mind.  If someone else wants to do this now, please do.  The image needs to
be 135 pixels tall, with the top 5 and bottom 5 pixels as a white border.
The individual shots shouldn't be wider than 200 pixels each, so 3 fit when
the page is in a standard 800x600 window.

> - last, but not least, is that, according to last weeks discussion, I have
> clearly understood that KFM complience is a must. Correct me on this one if
> I am wrong =)

and Michael Reiher [michael.reiher@gmx.de] wrote:
> But is there really no way around that KFM problem? KDE pages should IMO
> be _comletely_ compatible with the KDE browser, and that counts
> especially for offical KDE pages such as KDE main or KOffice.

Ok, let me be totally clear here:  /everything/ important about the page
works 100% in KFM.  All the content is there, the navigation is there, etc.
The /only/ thing KFM users will miss is the *1* graphic at the top.  My goal
with that graphic was to make it dynamic width, to fit any display, without
stretching it.  This means a table cell background, which KFM has no
mechanism to do.

/I/ think this counts as "compliant", since it doesn't affect content at
all and is one minor design element.  I think it looks ok without that
image, something like a file manager window.  So I think it's ok to leave
it, and when KFM for KDE2.0 comes out with CSS support (this is what I've
heard?) it'll be pretty there, too.

If a lot of people disagree, I can replace the table cell background with
just a regular image, but I really don't like this as it will force a
minimum width for the window, and we should /not/ do this.  As is, KFM users
will just not know what they are missing (1 image); a fixed width will
alienate a lot more people, especially a wide one.

> People might think "What do they have for a stupid browser? It canīt even
> display their own pages correctly!" or the otherway round.

Well... frankly, a web broswer that can't do any CSS is failing the current
HTML standard definition (4.0) and really is an inferior browser.  But this
wasn't the case when KFM was first done, and it's being included in the
next big version (as I understand), and there's no shame in that.  That's
how the web works.

Really, I think "compliant" means "it has to be totally useable", and it
is.  You won't be denied access to anything.  I think one or two extra
"window decorations" like this aren't a big deal.

But, if people think it looks crappy without that one image, I'll try to
think of an alternative design.

-- 
Jeremy Blosser   |   jblosser@firinn.org   |   http://jblosser.firinn.org/
-----------------+-------------------------+------------------------------
"Would you fight to the death, for that which you love?
                   In a cause surely hopeless ...for that which you love?"
                                             -- D. McKiernan, _Dragondoom_

[Attachment #3 (application/pgp-signature)]

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]