Regarding the Code::Blocks homepage design contest

[tiwag]

thanks @all
i obviously missed that info ;-)

[rickg22]

Well I don't like that "click in obscure part of the bottom of the webpage - that is not visible at first sight anyway - to fix the display" thingy. It's completely anti-user friendly.

Also, if you choose a "fluid design", look at what happens when the display is getting narrowed. Pictures overflow.

I mean, a simple three-column table layout would get rid of the problem. I'm not saying you must use 1,000 recursive tables (which i'm against, btw). Just one table, the rest can be divs.

[mandrav]

I disagree with the use of tables. "Tables Are Evil And Slow (tm)"
Though, I agree it would be better to default to "full-width" layout.

Yiannis.

[Anonymous]

@rickg22:

There are some inaccuracies in the handbook, but these can be fixed later. Now it's only matter of adding screenshots to the descriptions, and voila! Smile

Yes, probably, but as I said before, I don't have extremely much time, so that must be lower priority.

I'll add the pictures overflow and putting these toggle buttons at a better place (and/or changing their appearance) to my todo list.

@mandrav:
I've changed the default to fluid layout. (You'll have to remove the cookies, tho)
/Per Eckerdal

[per_eckerdal]

Question: In my mozilla, the right border of the header renders very strange (somtimes, sometimes not) when having floated width and scrolling. Does the bug show up for you too?
/Per Eckerdal

[per_eckerdal]

@rickg22 (at least mostly):
Where do you think I should put the toggle links? I don't know how much more visible you want them to be.. :? In the navigation bar or just larger icons?

The reason why I put them so hidden is that they aren't a required feature, just a small "extra". I don't want it to be a "click in obscure part of the bottom of the webpage - that is not visible at first sight anyway - to fix the display" thing, just a "small and unusual extra feature" thing. Making it very visible wasn't the point..
/Per Eckerdal

[rickg22]

How about just having a liquid design with tables? It's not hard. I know, for some purists 100%-CSS is the way to go, but if it just complicates things, then a hybrid approach (tables+css) is better.

[mandrav]

Question: In my mozilla, the right border of the header renders very strange (somtimes, sometimes not) when having floated width and scrolling. Does the bug show up for you too?
/Per Eckerdal

Firefox under linux works fine (although I experienced the slow scrolling when floating - and I have a fast computer and video card)

Yiannis.

[per_eckerdal]

Hehe..
I admit that I am a CSS purist  :twisted:

But I can still not see how this design would benefit from tablebased layout:
1. The overflow problem was fixed by two CSS rows (and I don't see how it would be better with tables anyways)
2. The fluid layout is set as default and works with all browser I can test with.
3. The fluid-fixed script does not in any way destroy for the default fluid design.
/Per Eckerdal

[per_eckerdal]

@mandrav:
Okay. Then it's probably just something with my computer
/Per Eckerdal

[per_eckerdal]

Okay.
Now it's almost finished. The things that are left to do are to add the faq questions, fix the wiki and forum links and a download section.

Do you think I just should link to the SF download page or should I create an own?

If you want to see, I have created an administration interface. It is *EXTREMELY* primitive and does only support the most common stuff, but more can be added later. If you want to do the uncommon things now you can modify the db directly (personally, I find that faster and more powerful than a web interface..)

The address is http://mellan.dyndns.org/codeblocks/admin/ and the username/pw is per/nordingra. But please don't mess up too much :wink:

There is a link in the admin interface called "error log". The 401, 403, 404 and 410 documents log here so that broken links and hack attempts can be found.
/Per Eckerdal

[per_eckerdal]

One more question:
Should I remove my FAQ section and link to the WiKi instead? Or should both be used?
/Per Eckerdal

[mandrav]

Do you think I just should link to the SF download page or should I create an own?

If it's not too much trouble, an own page would be better. Nothing fancy, 3-4 download links for the current version (core setup, full setup, SDK, source) with a small description for each (and a link to the sf files section). All in one page. As simple as possible

Should I remove my FAQ section and link to the WiKi instead? Or should both be used?

For now, both should be used because they currently contain out-of-sync info  :oops:

Thanks,
Yiannis.

[David Perfors]

One more question:
Should I remove my FAQ section and link to the WiKi instead? Or should both be used?
/Per Eckerdal

I vote for linking it to the wiki, so everyone is able to add questions and answers.

[per_eckerdal]

I agree with mispunt. The FAQ questions will need to be readded anyways..

As you can see I have almost finished the download section. Do you think it is understandable enough? I think the files need a short description though, especially the SDK, because what it is isn't 100% clear (not for me, at least.. It is for developing plugins, right?)

After this there is, AFAICT, nothing left to be done before the page can be "released" to the public.

The handbook should be reorganized (XML-wise), but that can be done later..
/Per Eckerdal