You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to docs@httpd.apache.org by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> on 2008/04/23 22:04:09 UTC
adopt www.apache.org site design
Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about the details of
the design. (Although people are welcome to play around after it is
committed.) I just grabbed exactly what is being used for
www.apache.org and made a few small changes to adapt to our site.
There www.apache.org redesign changed the semantics of the xml a
little bit, so there may be some adjustments required on the site.
(For example, the main heading for the page now comes from the first
<section> title rather than the <title> in the header.
Here is a rough cut
http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
The links don't work, but you can type in the URLs with the obvious
adjustment to see other pages.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Tony Stevenson <to...@pc-tony.com>.
Joshua Slive wrote:
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
>
Go for it, a +1 from me too. Nice move, I was wondering how long it
would take to disseminate into project websites.
> I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about the details of
> the design. (Although people are welcome to play around after it is
> committed.) I just grabbed exactly what is being used for
> www.apache.org and made a few small changes to adapt to our site.
>
> There www.apache.org redesign changed the semantics of the xml a
> little bit, so there may be some adjustments required on the site.
> (For example, the main heading for the page now comes from the first
> <section> title rather than the <title> in the header.
>
> Here is a rough cut
> http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> The links don't work, but you can type in the URLs with the obvious
> adjustment to see other pages.
Looks good Josh.
>
> Joshua.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Sander Temme <sa...@temme.net>.
On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
+1, Do it.
S.
--
sander@temme.net http://www.temme.net/sander/
PGP FP: 51B4 8727 466A 0BC3 69F4 B7B8 B2BE BC40 1529 24AF
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by "William A. Rowe, Jr." <wr...@rowe-clan.net>.
Joshua Slive wrote:
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
The detail lost in this discussion is that docs@ is a specific activity
of the httpd project, documenting the httpd application, in a dozen
languages, with relatively light traffic flow and allowing dialogs
between many non-native english speakers. This sort of dialog (when
it gets nasty, especially) is better left on the "hardcore" list.
This TLP's list *is* dev@httpd.apache.org. The website itself should,
really, be discussed over there.
Bill
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 01:39:11PM -0700, Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> I don't think so. Maybe I am going blind, but I find that style very
> hard to read. I prefer the larger font, white background, and original
> feather graphics of our current site. I seriously dislike the menu bar
> and horizontal rules in the new design, and am absolutely -1 on any change
> to our project logo (which is different from the ASF logo).
>
Agreed. I'd really hate to have the docs messed up by the new design.
Readablity should take preference over fancy new colors.
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 4:39 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
>
> > Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> > httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
> >
>
> I don't think so. Maybe I am going blind, but I find that style very
> hard to read. I prefer the larger font, white background, and original
> feather graphics of our current site. I seriously dislike the menu bar
> and horizontal rules in the new design, and am absolutely -1 on any change
> to our project logo (which is different from the ASF logo).
I know that you designed the project logo. I've never liked it. And I
think it is probably the most dated-looking thing on the site. It is
the thing I most want to get rid of. (There, I'm done insulting Roy.
;-)
For the rest of it, contributions are welcome. The www.apache.org
redesign has been positively received by the vast majority, although
there are always differences of opinion. I'm no designer myself, so
I've basically just adopted it whole-hog, with only a few
modifications (including the top menu bar).
I'm taking the -1 as a vote rather than veto, of course, since this is
a non-technical issue.
Mads: I have no plan of touching the docs (manual) pages. They already
have a relatively up-to-date design and they have a completely
different build system.
Rüdiger: There may be some .xml pages that need small adjustments
because of the changes in the meaning of the markup, but I think the
majority is fine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 23, 2008, at 1:04 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
I don't think so. Maybe I am going blind, but I find that style very
hard to read. I prefer the larger font, white background, and original
feather graphics of our current site. I seriously dislike the menu bar
and horizontal rules in the new design, and am absolutely -1 on any
change
to our project logo (which is different from the ASF logo).
OTOH, I have no objection to improving the layout and getting rid
of the horizontal grey heading bars on our current site.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Mads Toftum <ma...@toftum.dk>.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 10:25:18AM +0100, Nick Kew wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:59:54 -0400
> "Joshua Slive" <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
>
> > Two small changes to the CSS got rid of the
> > font-size and reflow issue, as you can see from
> > http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
>
The two heading lines look absolutely horrible on this standard xp:
The Apache HTTP Server
The world's most popular web server
that font really doesn't scale well and looks very uneven.
> The other consideration is the auto-generated documentation
> that makes up most of the site. It is amongst the best-designed
> techie pages anywhere on the Web, so we definitely shouldn't
> be messing with them unless you have a much stronger vision
> than aligning them with www.apache.org (no matter how good
> that becomes). Adapting the front page to the standard of
> the docs would seem a better goal.
>
Agreed. +1
vh
Mads Toftum
--
http://soulfood.dk
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 18:59:54 -0400
"Joshua Slive" <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> Two small changes to the CSS got rid of the
> font-size and reflow issue, as you can see from
> http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
Yes, that addresses my most important criticisms.
I can withdraw -1, but am not yet ready to say +1:
* it's still "transitional"!!!!!
* why the **** are all the links made *bold*?
* why the whitespace at both sides, even with a narrow
browser window?
* Going straight from <h1> to <h4> breaks structure.
* That purple link colour is rather too close to
traditional/default "visited link" colour for
optimum usability.
I'm also not very enthusiastic about the aesthetics.
But I make no claim to be any judge of that!
> But I think most people would agree that this design looks less
> "modern".
FSVO "modern" around 1997?
> Why? Because on the real internet, so many sites use a
> smaller-than-default font size, that users think of the small size as
> the real default and adjust their expectations and browser settings
> accordingly.
I think that basically all happened when early MSIE versions
had ridiculously large default text, among other defects.
What we have now is a hangover from that.
> To be clear again: I didn't design this. It is adopted from
> www.apache.org. I think it is a clear improvement, but I'm not going
> to force it down people's throats.
Different baseline. The old www.apache.org wanted a facelift,
but httpd.apache.org had a much better startingpoint.
The other consideration is the auto-generated documentation
that makes up most of the site. It is amongst the best-designed
techie pages anywhere on the Web, so we definitely shouldn't
be messing with them unless you have a much stronger vision
than aligning them with www.apache.org (no matter how good
that becomes). Adapting the front page to the standard of
the docs would seem a better goal.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Vincent de Lau <vi...@delau.nl>.
> From: Roy T. Fielding [mailto:fielding@gbiv.com]
> The background
> is white because that's the background of our nontransparent logo
> images, and unless you intend to convert them all there is no
> point in trying to change it. If you want to improve other things
> about our site, then go ahead and test out those other things.
Actualy, the current logo on the website has no white pixels but
transparancy. The black bar is in the background however, but 5 seconds of
Photoshop gets rid of it. (attached as PNG)
Vincent de Lau
vincent@delau.nl
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Astrid 'Kess' Stolper <ke...@kess-net.de>.
On Thursday 24 April 2008 20:29:20 Joshua Slive wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> > In any case, I've got way better things to
> > do then this.
>
> Whatever, Roy.
>
> I'm not going to put this to a PMC vote because I think it is
> poisoness to the docs group to let a bunch of people who aren't
> participating in documentation development make decisions on
> inconsequential docs changes. This group can't function if the people
> making the decisions aren't the ones doing the work.
eh? It is one progrect. Shall devs have separate pages? Or the other way
round, do docs peopls have no rihgt to vote on releases? What a crap.
Whether non docs people are interested in this discussion, is one thing. But
telling them they don't have a right to speak or vote, is another and very
bad view. It is also not the way I want to see the ASF or a part of it
behaving!
However, I don't like the new layout. Neither at www.apache.org nor elsewhere.
It is hard to read, difficult to focus and in my eyes far less modern than
the last www.apache.org layout. -1 from me.
Kess
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Vinko Vrsalovic <vi...@gmail.com>.
Finally someone injects the much needed sanity in this thread!
On Thu, Mar 26, 2009 at 3:22 AM, dhickox <dh...@cox.net> wrote:
> Hy Frankdavid,but call me dhickox,firstI would like some body to detail me
> what role am I playing on theseginy pig experimental,I feel you in on
> part,I been tracking jon since 20 computers agowhen I was selling at Bay mr
> commander and jon took advantage of poor skills on computers,and stole all
> the drivers and I had no clue, that could be possible,so I told my dad I
> will get them as fast as can no matter how long it takes AND computers,well
> kept data of each events it was happening,soevery time I get to close "Ant
> with NT licenses to kill"harddisk atack my homeaway from home,I learned
> about copy right violations done on my computers,and this oneIgot pretty
> good on the computer,but I did notices,the mistakes I made coupleof weeks
> ago that other times had cost me one more computer,but this time I was kept
> alive,but when the ants notices I was not going to stop went full force
> again, but this timeI have not made the same mistake even do ants and bugs
> count with geeks,and I have not trust any body,and I have shown that with
> no
> support but 80 hrs a week or more to save the computer and upgrade my
> skills,but this time it cost all my (R) WindowsXP home and pro arte useless
> because while I was fighting one side the back door was open and trade me
> for windows txtand bride me to be shirts to all of you,but I have use the
> toolbox or version tracker or OS or java from Apacheal I had was second
> editionwindows installer and administrators by Linux I purshusealmost 8
> months ago and one of my CD got broken,but if somebody fills me in I
> certanly will give you it shut tolet you finish whever expiremt this is all
> about,so far I was going to blocked all as I did global and apacheeven do I
> have not use the Linux toolbox or theirsugestion neither I have use
> yours,until I know what this is all about, I filled in my part,when I first
> went Apache is because I wanted to move on and start selling my
> collectibles
> and antiques,but jon did not let go,and neither will I until he replaces
> back all my original software on my dads computer and mine and compasate
> me$
> for the trouble that has cost, and still hyjacking me but he trade it my
> good rolex for one of those they sell in downtown NY for 20.00dlls,is not
> the a good mechanic could not use tawian, but as American I pay for the
> best
> I could and very proud,and I want it backbeside that I am broke now,so
> thank
> you ,but if I do not get to know was going on my quest is jon and mr
> commander so I blocked all websites doing the study,as I said up to now I
> have not use any it was to overwhelming all of the son,so I said trust only
> yurself so far
>
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by dhickox <dh...@cox.net>.
Hy Frankdavid,but call me dhickox,firstI would like some body to detail me
what role am I playing on theseginy pig experimental,I feel you in on
part,I been tracking jon since 20 computers agowhen I was selling at Bay mr
commander and jon took advantage of poor skills on computers,and stole all
the drivers and I had no clue, that could be possible,so I told my dad I
will get them as fast as can no matter how long it takes AND computers,well
kept data of each events it was happening,soevery time I get to close "Ant
with NT licenses to kill"harddisk atack my homeaway from home,I learned
about copy right violations done on my computers,and this oneIgot pretty
good on the computer,but I did notices,the mistakes I made coupleof weeks
ago that other times had cost me one more computer,but this time I was kept
alive,but when the ants notices I was not going to stop went full force
again, but this timeI have not made the same mistake even do ants and bugs
count with geeks,and I have not trust any body,and I have shown that with no
support but 80 hrs a week or more to save the computer and upgrade my
skills,but this time it cost all my (R) WindowsXP home and pro arte useless
because while I was fighting one side the back door was open and trade me
for windows txtand bride me to be shirts to all of you,but I have use the
toolbox or version tracker or OS or java from Apacheal I had was second
editionwindows installer and administrators by Linux I purshusealmost 8
months ago and one of my CD got broken,but if somebody fills me in I
certanly will give you it shut tolet you finish whever expiremt this is all
about,so far I was going to blocked all as I did global and apacheeven do I
have not use the Linux toolbox or theirsugestion neither I have use
yours,until I know what this is all about, I filled in my part,when I first
went Apache is because I wanted to move on and start selling my collectibles
and antiques,but jon did not let go,and neither will I until he replaces
back all my original software on my dads computer and mine and compasate me$
for the trouble that has cost, and still hyjacking me but he trade it my
good rolex for one of those they sell in downtown NY for 20.00dlls,is not
the a good mechanic could not use tawian, but as American I pay for the best
I could and very proud,and I want it backbeside that I am broke now,so thank
you ,but if I do not get to know was going on my quest is jon and mr
commander so I blocked all websites doing the study,as I said up to now I
have not use any it was to overwhelming all of the son,so I said trust only
yurself so far
----- Original Message -----
From: "Astrid 'Kess' Stolper" <ke...@kess-net.de>
To: <do...@httpd.apache.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 24, 2008 1:02 PM
Subject: Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
> On Thursday 24 April 2008 22:31:56 Paul Querna wrote:
> > Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> > >> Which just goes to show why I stated in my original email that I
> > >> wasn't interested in nitpicking the design with a bunch of back-seat
> > >> quarterbacks. Everyone has different opinions about what constitutes
> > >> good design. I was trying to adopt something that had a
pretty-obvious
> > >> consensus positive opinion.
> > >
> > > Just because the PRC is happy to redesign www.apache.org without so
much
> > > as a whisper on the site-dev list does not mean there was consensus.
It
> > > is difficult to adjust www.apache.org because of the overlapping
> > > stylesheets
> > > are fairly screwed for edits. In any case, I've got way better things
to
> > > do then this.
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> > We are all very busy people, and this kind of bike shedding doesn't get
> > us anywhere.
>
> I do not agree in all points with roy, but he is absolutely right about
the
> consensus. I am sorry to say this, but I felt overran by the new layout.
> I did not demur, because the changes are made. But I am getting really
angry,
> if we want to base our changes here on the consensus for www.apache.org.
>
> Again: -1 from me
>
> Kess
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Astrid 'Kess' Stolper <ke...@kess-net.de>.
On Thursday 24 April 2008 22:31:56 Paul Querna wrote:
> Roy T. Fielding wrote:
> >> Which just goes to show why I stated in my original email that I
> >> wasn't interested in nitpicking the design with a bunch of back-seat
> >> quarterbacks. Everyone has different opinions about what constitutes
> >> good design. I was trying to adopt something that had a pretty-obvious
> >> consensus positive opinion.
> >
> > Just because the PRC is happy to redesign www.apache.org without so much
> > as a whisper on the site-dev list does not mean there was consensus. It
> > is difficult to adjust www.apache.org because of the overlapping
> > stylesheets
> > are fairly screwed for edits. In any case, I've got way better things to
> > do then this.
>
> Roy,
>
> We are all very busy people, and this kind of bike shedding doesn't get
> us anywhere.
I do not agree in all points with roy, but he is absolutely right about the
consensus. I am sorry to say this, but I felt overran by the new layout.
I did not demur, because the changes are made. But I am getting really angry,
if we want to base our changes here on the consensus for www.apache.org.
Again: -1 from me
Kess
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Vinko Vrsalovic <vi...@gmail.com>.
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:26 AM, Maxime Petazzoni <
maxime.petazzoni@bulix.org> wrote:
> Roy's idea here is good. Let's setup a design contest, with rules we
> will agree on (keeping the logo, accessibiliy, being xhtml1.1 compliant
> or whatever), and vote on the results. Sum up the vote, and commit the
> winner. End of story. And as every vote, some will be disappointed by
> the outcome, but at least it will be the result of the collaboration of
> our community.
>
The idea is great, the problem I see is that there will still be a lot of
disagreement over the set of objective measures that every contestant MUST
or SHOULD pass to enter.
In any case I think that just defining these guidelines (ie "Apache
project's web site accessibility and design guidelines") would be a worthy
goal, even if we end up keeping the old design and nobody enters the
potential contest. I do not know it such a thing is feasible.
If it is, then an incremental improvement work could occur to achieve what
the guidelines ended up defining. Of course the guidelines should talk only
about objective things. Looks and subjective things would be what a vote
would pick.
There seems to be agreement among a significant amount of people that the
design we've had for a long time is old and should be freshened up,
regardless of whether they agree or not with the current (and ONLY, so far)
proposal.
V.
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Maxime Petazzoni <ma...@bulix.org>.
[Ok, let's jump into the ring.]
Hi,
* Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> [2008-04-24 15:51:29]:
> On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
>> We are all very busy people, and this kind of bike shedding doesn't
>> get us anywhere.
>
> We have a defined process for resolving paint colors for bike sheds.
> We only use it when there is disagreement. The only time this stuff
> blows up is when people refuse to play by the same rules.
I'm not really sure people here realize how insane this discussion here.
No offense, but you look like a bunch of kids fighting in a playground.
Where is the wisdom and professionalism we've been use too ?
If you stand back just a little, you will quickly see that this is going
nowhere. Almost everyone is standing on its position.
Joshua, I think that in the light of the first couple of -1s you should
have called for a clear vote on this thing. It may, or may not, have the
thing commited, and then people could start incrementally improve it,
since the site is CTR.
>> I believe it is an improvement, and we can build incrementally on it,
>> and work through the issues you and others have raised.
>>
>> Therefore, I am +1 adopting the design.
>
> And I am -1 on adopting it. So either change the proposal so that there
> isn't a disagreement, abandon it entirely, or go over to dev and start a
> vote on which design is better (old or new, majority rules). Better
> yet,
> suggest a design contest wherein multiple designs can be submitted and
> we'll choose one based on a simple preference vote. That way there is no
> hurry, everyone's opinion is considered equally, and we don't have to
> waste time on commit wars or agreeing to a new process of making our
> decisions for CTR products. And if you still think the bike shed looks
> bad, then make another proposal (preferably a small one) and see if
> anyone disagrees ... that's collaboration.
For different reasons than just its design, I'm -1 on the new design.
But I do agree that the site may need to follow us into the 21st
century!
Roy's idea here is good. Let's setup a design contest, with rules we
will agree on (keeping the logo, accessibiliy, being xhtml1.1 compliant
or whatever), and vote on the results. Sum up the vote, and commit the
winner. End of story. And as every vote, some will be disappointed by
the outcome, but at least it will be the result of the collaboration of
our community.
- Maxime
--
Maxime Petazzoni <http://www.bulix.org>
06.71.50.63.63
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 24, 2008, at 1:31 PM, Paul Querna wrote:
> We are all very busy people, and this kind of bike shedding doesn't
> get us anywhere.
We have a defined process for resolving paint colors for bike sheds.
We only use it when there is disagreement. The only time this stuff
blows up is when people refuse to play by the same rules.
> I believe it is an improvement, and we can build incrementally on
> it, and work through the issues you and others have raised.
>
> Therefore, I am +1 adopting the design.
And I am -1 on adopting it. So either change the proposal so that there
isn't a disagreement, abandon it entirely, or go over to dev and start a
vote on which design is better (old or new, majority rules). Better
yet,
suggest a design contest wherein multiple designs can be submitted and
we'll choose one based on a simple preference vote. That way there is no
hurry, everyone's opinion is considered equally, and we don't have to
waste time on commit wars or agreeing to a new process of making our
decisions for CTR products. And if you still think the bike shed looks
bad, then make another proposal (preferably a small one) and see if
anyone disagrees ... that's collaboration.
As long as you don't piss and moan about the process and the people
who we've already decided have the right to vote, then you won't be
crossing my role as chair (even if I think the result sucks).
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Paul Querna <ch...@force-elite.com>.
Roy T. Fielding wrote:
>> Which just goes to show why I stated in my original email that I
>> wasn't interested in nitpicking the design with a bunch of back-seat
>> quarterbacks. Everyone has different opinions about what constitutes
>> good design. I was trying to adopt something that had a pretty-obvious
>> consensus positive opinion.
>
> Just because the PRC is happy to redesign www.apache.org without so much
> as a whisper on the site-dev list does not mean there was consensus. It
> is difficult to adjust www.apache.org because of the overlapping
> stylesheets
> are fairly screwed for edits. In any case, I've got way better things to
> do then this.
Roy,
We are all very busy people, and this kind of bike shedding doesn't get
us anywhere.
I believe it is an improvement, and we can build incrementally on it,
and work through the issues you and others have raised.
Therefore, I am +1 adopting the design.
-Paul
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 25, 2008, at 6:09 AM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> The way I should have phrased it is this: When people who aren't
> working on a particular documentation issue try to control how it is
> done, it takes the fun out of it for me.
You lost me there. If you define a documentation task as a one-person
effort, then it will indeed be work (not fun) to try to satisfy the
desires of a bunch of other people. So, rather than expect everyone
else to suppress their own desires, change the task so that it isn't
a one-person effort. It isn't quite the same as instant gratification,
but it feels better in the long run.
For example, I doubt that anyone would object to changing the output
so that it becomes easy to apply CSS skins. I mean, there will
undoubtedly be some quibbles over small choices like which DOCTYPE
to use, but technical items like that are relatively easy to resolve
and don't require prior buy-in. I am willing to work on that because
I like enabling parallel designs (and know how to tweak Anakia).
Other people can have fun coming up with new skins, and we can either
decide on a default or rotate a few of them.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 2:29 PM, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> I'm not going to put this to a PMC vote because I think it is
> poisoness to the docs group to let a bunch of people who aren't
> participating in documentation development make decisions on
> inconsequential docs changes. This group can't function if the people
> making the decisions aren't the ones doing the work.
I realize now that this statement was subject to misinterpretation and
I apologize for that. I don't mean to imply in any way that the docs
group and the PMC are separate entities with disjoint membership. We
are all part of the same project and the PMC is the ultimate decision
maker.
The way I should have phrased it is this: When people who aren't
working on a particular documentation issue try to control how it is
done, it takes the fun out of it for me. If it isn't fun, I'm probably
not going to do it.
In this particular case, what I thought was consensus about the new
www.apache.org design was actually created by people not expressing
their opinions. That is exactly why I sent the original mail: to check
that there was general agreement that this was a good base. Since this
agreement doesn't exist, I don't see any point in continuing. I don't
need a vote for that.
I don't know exactly how things should proceed from here. I'm
certainly not opposed to a design contest, but I'm also not optimistic
that it is going to happen unless someone has the time and energy to
invest in driving it. There has also been some suggestion that website
discussion belongs on dev@httpd. I believe that there is a greater
absolute number and greater percentage of people interested in website
issues here than on dev, but I don't have any objection to the issue
being discussed on dev instead.
In any case, I suggest that anyone who wants to discuss the website
design start a new thread with a new perspective. This one is a
dead-end.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> In any case, I've got way better things to
> do then this.
Whatever, Roy.
I'm not going to put this to a PMC vote because I think it is
poisoness to the docs group to let a bunch of people who aren't
participating in documentation development make decisions on
inconsequential docs changes. This group can't function if the people
making the decisions aren't the ones doing the work.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 24, 2008, at 6:32 AM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> The pages you pointed to as examples used <100% for their default text
> fonts (at least the ones I checked). If you're trying to make an
> empirical argument, start by checking the data.
I looked at the characters on screen. I don't care if the characters
are
styled by the "default font" or the "content font" or the "header font".
What matters is the stuff I need to read is readable. They might
even be
switching stylesheets based on user-agent and we are looking at entirely
different styles. I can only assure you that the content text is no
less
than 14pt in Firefox on a Mac and the look is decidedly modern. Smaller
fonts are only used for extracts/legalese/follow-link-to-read-more
stuff.
> I'm not saying the font currently used on www.apache.org is the best
> choice. I was making a particular point to Nick, who is a little bit
> of a purest (for reasons I fully understand). I agree that the font is
> a little too small and the background would look better in white.
>
>> As far as modern design is concerned, it simply isn't true that
>> cropping all the images on the page when the window is shrunk is
>> better than establishing a fixed minimum for the design. Scrollbars
>> work better than missing content.
>
> www.apache.org doesn't do the cropping. I made that change for Nick.
>
> Which just goes to show why I stated in my original email that I
> wasn't interested in nitpicking the design with a bunch of back-seat
> quarterbacks. Everyone has different opinions about what constitutes
> good design. I was trying to adopt something that had a pretty-obvious
> consensus positive opinion.
Just because the PRC is happy to redesign www.apache.org without so much
as a whisper on the site-dev list does not mean there was consensus. It
is difficult to adjust www.apache.org because of the overlapping
stylesheets
are fairly screwed for edits. In any case, I've got way better
things to
do then this.
>> So, in short, -1. The logo will not change without a full vote of
>> the PMC
>
> When was the last time the PMC had a "full vote" on anything?
Whenever someone votes -1 on a CTR documentation change. Have you
forgotten that we have guidelines?
> But if you are feeling that obstructionist about it, that is fine with
> me. I'll drop the whole thing.
Stop your whining. You asked for objections and I gave mine. If you
don't like them and want to continue, then prototype what you actually
want and put it to vote. If it isn't worth doing that, then don't.
Don't try to make me feel guilty just because I have an opinion.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > What are you talking about Roy? I don't want to get into this
> > argument, but just checking one of the those three example sites (the
> > last one), I found all three of the "flaws" that Nick was after: does
> > not reflow properly for very-small screens, sets font size to 62.5% of
> > the user's default, and uses the transitional DOCTYPE.
> >
>
> I am talking about your vague handwaving about small font == modern.
> That's a load of crap. If you look at pages that have been designed
> by actual designers, they don't use a bunch of tiny fonts for the
> primary content (only for things like legal fine print/credits).
The pages you pointed to as examples used <100% for their default text
fonts (at least the ones I checked). If you're trying to make an
empirical argument, start by checking the data.
I'm not saying the font currently used on www.apache.org is the best
choice. I was making a particular point to Nick, who is a little bit
of a purest (for reasons I fully understand). I agree that the font is
a little too small and the background would look better in white.
> As far as modern design is concerned, it simply isn't true that
> cropping all the images on the page when the window is shrunk is
> better than establishing a fixed minimum for the design. Scrollbars
> work better than missing content.
www.apache.org doesn't do the cropping. I made that change for Nick.
Which just goes to show why I stated in my original email that I
wasn't interested in nitpicking the design with a bunch of back-seat
quarterbacks. Everyone has different opinions about what constitutes
good design. I was trying to adopt something that had a pretty-obvious
consensus positive opinion.
> So, in short, -1. The logo will not change without a full vote of
> the PMC
When was the last time the PMC had a "full vote" on anything?
But if you are feeling that obstructionist about it, that is fine with
me. I'll drop the whole thing.
> If you want to improve other things
> about our site, then go ahead and test out those other things.
> I'll bet that you can completely change the look and feel of the
> site without touching the logo and without using tiny fonts,
> and while you are at it please remove the stupid ApacheCon ad.
No way am I playing that game. Our docs have always worked under the
rule that the person who does the work gets to make the decisions.
That is important both to encourage people to take on these tasks, and
because docs changes aren't verifiable and testable like code changes.
They often come down to taste. Trying to satisfy everyone's taste on
website design is a hopeless black-hole of time and energy, and I'm
not interested.
By the way, I am in complete agreement that the three sites you posted
as examples have a design far superior to either the old or new design
we are talking about (although I can't imagine any of them are very
usable on your Blackberry). What's the difference? Two things: some
serious skills and effort in graphic design, plus significant work to
meld the design and content. The design from www.apache.org lived
within the existing content structure.
It would be great to see someone really rethink the site (necessarily
both content and design) to get to something truly better. But of
course, if they have to pass the Roy taste test at the end, there is
little incentive to start.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 23, 2008, at 5:42 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> What are you talking about Roy? I don't want to get into this
> argument, but just checking one of the those three example sites (the
> last one), I found all three of the "flaws" that Nick was after: does
> not reflow properly for very-small screens, sets font size to 62.5% of
> the user's default, and uses the transitional DOCTYPE.
I am talking about your vague handwaving about small font == modern.
That's a load of crap. If you look at pages that have been designed
by actual designers, they don't use a bunch of tiny fonts for the
primary content (only for things like legal fine print/credits).
I don't change the scale of my fonts on my browser because I don't
have to -- the modern sites I use don't have tiny fonts and the
crappy ones (like bankofamerica.com) can be adjusted with command-+.
I certainly didn't suggest that every font in the CSS needs to be
enlarged -- just the main content. It is not readable on my screen.
That is not open to your opinion. Helvetica Neue is readable at
12pt and 14pt, not at 0.8em or 0.75% of 14pt. I'd tell you
exactly which one is unreadable but the layering is too friggin
complex to tell whether the 0.8em or 75% is winning.
As far as modern design is concerned, it simply isn't true that
cropping all the images on the page when the window is shrunk is
better than establishing a fixed minimum for the design. Scrollbars
work better than missing content. Even better than that is a
separate stylesheet for small screens. When I access www.apache.org
now with my blackberry, it looks like crap compared to the old design
(which can still be seen on projects.apache.org). The new design
doesn't even show our logo.
So, in short, -1. The logo will not change without a full vote of
the PMC (it has been the same since 1995, predates the ASF, and
establishes the feather mark way back in Internet time which is
very important because we never registered the marks). It is not
supposed to be the same feather as the ASF logo. The background
is white because that's the background of our nontransparent logo
images, and unless you intend to convert them all there is no
point in trying to change it. If you want to improve other things
about our site, then go ahead and test out those other things.
I'll bet that you can completely change the look and feel of the
site without touching the logo and without using tiny fonts,
and while you are at it please remove the stupid ApacheCon ad.
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 8:21 PM, Roy T. Fielding <fi...@gbiv.com> wrote:
> On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
>
> > I know all these arguments, and I'm not going to get into them, except
> > to say that the vast majority of websites on the internet share every
> > one of these "flaws". Two small changes to the CSS got rid of the
> > font-size and reflow issue, as you can see from
> > http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> > But I think most people would agree that this design looks less
> > "modern". Why? Because on the real internet, so many sites use a
> > smaller-than-default font size, that users think of the small size as
> > the real default and adjust their expectations and browser settings
> > accordingly.
> >
>
> WTF? No they don't.
>
> http://modrails.com/index.html
> http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/
> http://wordpress.org/
>
> Bad design is just bad, not modern. I think these choices look remedial
> on the ASF site, but I'm too busy to do better. They look bad on a more
> technical site like httpd.a.o (where I have already done better).
What are you talking about Roy? I don't want to get into this
argument, but just checking one of the those three example sites (the
last one), I found all three of the "flaws" that Nick was after: does
not reflow properly for very-small screens, sets font size to 62.5% of
the user's default, and uses the transitional DOCTYPE.
Whatever.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by "Roy T. Fielding" <fi...@gbiv.com>.
On Apr 23, 2008, at 3:59 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> I know all these arguments, and I'm not going to get into them, except
> to say that the vast majority of websites on the internet share every
> one of these "flaws". Two small changes to the CSS got rid of the
> font-size and reflow issue, as you can see from
> http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> But I think most people would agree that this design looks less
> "modern". Why? Because on the real internet, so many sites use a
> smaller-than-default font size, that users think of the small size as
> the real default and adjust their expectations and browser settings
> accordingly.
WTF? No they don't.
http://modrails.com/index.html
http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/
http://wordpress.org/
Bad design is just bad, not modern. I think these choices look remedial
on the ASF site, but I'm too busy to do better. They look bad on a more
technical site like httpd.a.o (where I have already done better).
....Roy
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 6:17 PM, Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:04:09 -0400
> "Joshua Slive" <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
>
>
> > Here is a rough cut
> > http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> > The links don't work, but you can type in the URLs with the obvious
> > adjustment to see other pages.
>
> -1 as-is. Wearing my (admittedly old) web QA and accessibility hat.
>
> First, if we're updating, then please don't let the update be
> pre-1998 legacy (aka "transitional") markup.
>
> Second, and more important, it loses the (imperfect but decent)
> cleanness and accessibility of the current site. The page has
> lost flexibility, so the right hand side - including all the
> useful links - disappears off the browser below a certain width.
> And the smallprint is hard on the eye: body text should be what
> the user has selected as comfortable to read.
I know all these arguments, and I'm not going to get into them, except
to say that the vast majority of websites on the internet share every
one of these "flaws". Two small changes to the CSS got rid of the
font-size and reflow issue, as you can see from
http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
But I think most people would agree that this design looks less
"modern". Why? Because on the real internet, so many sites use a
smaller-than-default font size, that users think of the small size as
the real default and adjust their expectations and browser settings
accordingly.
> And (to me) the
> sections/headings are less distinct.
>
> Having said that, I see some improvements on the old site:
> in particular your use of headings, which is better for
> automated tools and for things like screenreaders. And
> moving the links to the end in text-only mode is good,
> though a single "jump to navigation" at the top would
> improve it.
To be clear again: I didn't design this. It is adopted from
www.apache.org. I think it is a clear improvement, but I'm not going
to force it down people's throats.
Joshua.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 16:04:09 -0400
"Joshua Slive" <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> Here is a rough cut
> http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> The links don't work, but you can type in the URLs with the obvious
> adjustment to see other pages.
-1 as-is. Wearing my (admittedly old) web QA and accessibility hat.
First, if we're updating, then please don't let the update be
pre-1998 legacy (aka "transitional") markup.
Second, and more important, it loses the (imperfect but decent)
cleanness and accessibility of the current site. The page has
lost flexibility, so the right hand side - including all the
useful links - disappears off the browser below a certain width.
And the smallprint is hard on the eye: body text should be what
the user has selected as comfortable to read. And (to me) the
sections/headings are less distinct.
Having said that, I see some improvements on the old site:
in particular your use of headings, which is better for
automated tools and for things like screenreaders. And
moving the links to the end in text-only mode is good,
though a single "jump to navigation" at the top would
improve it.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Nick Kew <ni...@webthing.com>.
On Wed, 23 Apr 2008 20:15:48 -0500
"Webmaster" <we...@htaccesselite.com> wrote:
> The main thing that makes it look basd is the clashing boldness of the
> purple and red fonts against a light black font that doesn't look so
> good against all that tan.
>
> Just little tweaks and it will look awesome, but I have to tell you I
> am put off by that tan background.. It would look better perhaps to
> make the right and left page margins white or something like that..
> this is frontpage '98 reminiscent.
Thank you. I think you've pinpointed my aesthetic objections
which (not being in any sense a "designer" myself) I wasn't
able to articulate with specificity.
--
Nick Kew
Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book
http://www.apachetutor.org/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
RE: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Webmaster <we...@htaccesselite.com>.
I like the top grey bar, thats at a high level, same with the feather and
general layout. The search box, and lists on the right are also good
position wise.
The main thing that makes it look basd is the clashing boldness of the
purple and red fonts against a light black font that doesn't look so good
against all that tan.
Just little tweaks and it will look awesome, but I have to tell you I am put
off by that tan background.. It would look better perhaps to make the
right and left page margins white or something like that.. this is frontpage
'98 reminiscent.
Considering you don't have time to get the minute things perfect off the
bat, I really like it. But as apache.org it should be at the highest level,
like w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jslive@gmail.com [mailto:jslive@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
> Joshua Slive
> Sent: Wednesday, April 23, 2008 3:04 PM
> To: docs@httpd.apache.org
> Subject: adopt www.apache.org site design
>
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site
> design? The httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
>
> I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about the
> details of the design. (Although people are welcome to play
> around after it is
> committed.) I just grabbed exactly what is being used for
> www.apache.org and made a few small changes to adapt to our site.
>
> There www.apache.org redesign changed the semantics of the
> xml a little bit, so there may be some adjustments required
> on the site.
> (For example, the main heading for the page now comes from
> the first <section> title rather than the <title> in the header.
>
> Here is a rough cut
> http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> The links don't work, but you can type in the URLs with the
> obvious adjustment to see other pages.
>
> Joshua.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org For
> additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Ruediger Pluem <rp...@apache.org>.
On 04/23/2008 10:04 PM, Joshua Slive wrote:
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
Thanks for picking this up. Do it. Details can be adjusted later.
>
> I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about the details of
> the design. (Although people are welcome to play around after it is
> committed.) I just grabbed exactly what is being used for
> www.apache.org and made a few small changes to adapt to our site.
>
> There www.apache.org redesign changed the semantics of the xml a
> little bit, so there may be some adjustments required on the site.
> (For example, the main heading for the page now comes from the first
> <section> title rather than the <title> in the header.
Does this mean we need to adjust our documentation xml files as well?
Regards
Rüdiger
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Lucien GENTIS <lu...@lorraine.iufm.fr>.
Joshua Slive a écrit :
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
>
Perhaps a little dated, but so clear and efficient, . . . , looked good
to me :'(
But don't let us cry and pouring tears, let's go ahead :-)
> I'm not interested in getting into a long debate about the details of
> the design. (Although people are welcome to play around after it is
> committed.) I just grabbed exactly what is being used for
> www.apache.org and made a few small changes to adapt to our site.
>
> There www.apache.org redesign changed the semantics of the xml a
> little bit, so there may be some adjustments required on the site.
> (For example, the main heading for the page now comes from the first
> <section> title rather than the <title> in the header.
>
> Here is a rough cut
> http://people.apache.org/~slive/httpd-site/docs/
> The links don't work, but you can type in the URLs with the obvious
> adjustment to see other pages.
>
> Joshua.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <ju...@erenkrantz.com>.
On Wed, Apr 23, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Joshua Slive <jo...@slive.ca> wrote:
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
+1 to switching.
Those who are complaining know where the source is and they can
improve upon it themselves if they so desire. Until then, sure, this
design is, IMO, more accessible than what's there now. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Jason Lingohr <ja...@lucid.net.au>.
Jason Lingohr wrote:
> Joshua Slive wrote:
>> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
>> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
>>
>>
>
> I'm iffy on it at this moment -- I have a long weekend coming up
> (thankyou for all your efforts diggers!), and I'll look over it a bit
> more then.
>
Ok... now having directly compared -current to to Joshua's mockup -- I'm
+1 for the change as well.
To throw my little bit in on style -- I don't like the top "ribbon"
links thing, never have. Apart from that, I like to see nice lines
underneath sections in the news-type part, but the two things above can
be thrashed out later on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org
Re: adopt www.apache.org site design
Posted by Jason Lingohr <ja...@lucid.net.au>.
Joshua Slive wrote:
> Any objections to adopting the new www.apache.org site design? The
> httpd site is looking a little dated, in my opinion.
>
>
I'm iffy on it at this moment -- I have a long weekend coming up
(thankyou for all your efforts diggers!), and I'll look over it a bit
more then.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: docs-unsubscribe@httpd.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: docs-help@httpd.apache.org