On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:25:55PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
On Thu, Nov 03, 2016 at 03:56:00PM +0100, Martin Kletzander wrote:On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 12:41:41PM +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > The current libvirt website design dates from 2008 and > has not changed significantly since. Compared to > contemporary open source project websites it looks > pretty dated and cluttered. > I like the idea of updating the page. However I'm out of HTML/CSS/etc. stuff for a while, so I don't feel like doing technical review of the series. On the other hand it doesn't have to be perfect from the technical POV, so I think that unless there is something someone disagrees with, it's just about the design.Yeah, I'm not really looking for HTML/CSS review - content typos, layout problems, etc are more useful feedback.> This series incrementally changes the website to have > a completely new layout and branding. > > Since the original adobe illustrator files are long > since lost, this series introduces a newly created > variant of the libvirt logo with Inkscape as an SVG > file. > This is a pity. But well, we can update the logo as well, why not. [warning: subjective opinions follow, don't take them personally] I don't like the new logo. Just a few things would make me feel better about it. a) if the "virtualization api" didn't make it ten times wider because it's not a logo anymore, it's more like a banner now. b) was that logo made small and then increased in size? The dark tone of "lib" together with the blurriness of it makes my eyes hurt. It's nice that it is in SVG, but I believe making it closer to the libvirtLogo.png [1] (even when keeping it crooked/tilted) would be way nicer to look at.Ok, so when talking about the "logo" I consider that to be just the bare "tin" with no words. That basic logo form is then used to the form the basis of various graphics. The front page banner image is the logo combined with the text. The libvirtLogo.png that you mention is an alternative formatting. Both are right, they are just tailored for different usage scenarios, depending on whether the usage prefers a wide format image, or a square format image. The front page and top nav bar both call for the banner style logo graphic, but we can still have square format logos elsewhere if needed. I included the SVG as the final patch, so that it is easy for us to create different graphics from the same base logo. The bluriness is caused by inkscape anti-aliasing the font when exporting the SVG to PNG. I'll see if I can find any inkscape options to reduce this anti-aliasing, or perhaps try a different tool for the PNG export.
Interesting, I'll have a look at that.
> The libvirt logo used a specific font with angled tops > to letters like "l", "b" and "t" - this is the "Overpass" > font, made available by Red Hat under an open source > font license. The re-branding makes use of webfont > support so that we can use this font across the entire > libvirt website for a consistent look. > This is good. I didn't like the font and particularly the inconsistency in font types in the old website. But looking at the front page, the font sizes for the three content boxes are different and I feel like that's way bigger inconsistency. The black text in "Introduction" is probably the same size as the green-ish link text in the other two, but the lines are so thin that even hinting and auto-aliasing doesn't help smoothing it out (on my display, maybe it's better on different ones).Do you have Hi-DPI screen ?
No, only 1080p on 22" or 24", it might very likely just be my shitty eyes, though ;)
Yes, the black text in intro is the same font size as the green text in the others. I'm using the OverpassLight font for the non-heading text. If you want to see what it looks like with regualar Overpass font see here: https://berrange.fedorapeople.org/libvirt-new-website-heavy/ I had a slight preference towards OverpassLight, but perhaps the regular Overpass looks better on a wider range of screens, particularly Hi-DPI screens perhaps.
This looks sooo nice, I'd ACK this version. Even without the other nits taken care of =) But let's let others chime in as well.
I'm pretty ambivalent on this.> The bigger change is in the layout, with the huge > left hand sitemap nav bar being removed to give more > space to the main content. The front page now directly > links to the key pages that were shown to be highly > visited in the apache web logs. Most of the rest of > the links are now available from the "docs.html" page > linked from "Learn" in the top nav bar. > More space for the main content is nice, but using the whole width is not something you can see very often. I believe it's because it's way nicer to looking at, especially when you have short paragraphs that would otherwise span the whole width of the page just to be two lines long. That's the case after this series. Also the table on downloads page is nice, but other tables don't follow the same pattern. Plus they are on the side as well, e.g. acl.html [2]Yes, I did not try to exhaustively update all the pages. I'm only touching the front page, downloads and a couple of other pages. There's certainly scope for doing more cleanup across other existing pages to follow suit. This series is already rather large though, so I prefer to leave that to follow later.
Sure, I didn't mean to imply it needs to be all done at one point. Maybe I can take some time and look at it (after all things I said the same thing about).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list