Documentation visual style feedback

[Zedna]

If you guys see pages that do not match the new theme then please list them. Unfortunately the documentation isn't as... elegant as it could be with regards to web technology (Lots of styles are hard-coded). We need some help spotting all these pages so if you see one please tell us where it is.

I think these are all "top level" pages which are not in submenu in help index

[AZJIO]

The string "Function Reference" is better as annoying blue

Font names function better, but not so large

Description of functions - ideally

The orange color "Parameters" - okay.

Many space. No pages will not fit on the screen. Every page needs to scroll the text.

The red color in the examples are too bright. The font is too small in the examples. By the way, I like the font Arial (sans serif).

It would be nice to duplicate the button "Open this Script" in the beginning, not to scroll the text (example)

Edited December 8, 2011 by AZJIO

[Skitty]

Everything is real nice, certainly an improvement, but If I would have done them, I would have done a little different on color.

[matwachich]

Really... It's not that this style is bad, but I prefer the old style.

Too big, too unecessary scroll...

[FaridAgl]

What's wrong with scrolling? Is it really hard to drag your finger over the mouse scroll?

In my opinion the new style is relay nice, i like it and i feel good while reading the help file in new style. It speak with me in some ways!

[Valik]

What's wrong with scrolling? Is it really hard to drag your finger over the mouse scroll?

What we're learning are several things:

• A lot of people don't use high resolutions or
• A lot of people don't have the window maximized and
• People do not have a scroll wheel.
• People do not use a scroll wheel.
• People do not have their scroll wheel configured correctly.
• People are resistant to change.

Very enlightening subject. Edited December 8, 2011 by Valik

[Zedna]

What we're learning are several things:

• People are resistant to change.

Very enlightening subject.

I have no problems with change but only in case when it's change to better one.

I still don't like new style.

[wraithdu]

• Everything I work on is high res
• I love my scroll wheel
• Chiral scrolling on laptop trackpads is awesome

My eyes are thankful for the larger fonts, coloring, and spacing. I hope the new style makes the stable release.

[FaridAgl]

• A lot of people don't use high resolutions or = 1440x900 for me
• A lot of people don't have the window maximized and = I will never read even a single word of help file if the window is not maximized
• People do not have a scroll wheel.= sad for them, once they try a scroll wheel they will love it.
• People do not use a scroll wheel. = Try to learn using it.
• People do not have their scroll wheel configured correctly. = Just configure it.
• People are resistant to change. = Changes are welcomed and required for grow.

[Valik]

I am not sure why you felt the need to reply to my post like that. I get the impression you didn't really understand the point of my post.

[AZJIO]

Instead of tagging

<br> or <p>&amp;nbsp;</p>

better to use padding (margin) in css. This simplifies the editing of one file, but not all.

Some html- files contain a different way to color.

rgb(51, 0, 153) (clsid.htm)
rgb(0, 0, 153)
rgb(255, 255, 153) (ascii.htm, fonts.htm)
rgb(255, 255, 255)
#000099 (64-bit_support.htm, etc)
#000066 (GUIRef.htm, lang_datatypes.htm)

To make it easier to make a change of style, you need to do the same type in all

new_test.7z - (11KB) edited default.css, Assign.htm, GuiStyles.htm

page "Standard Windows Fonts" link is not visible

On the toolbar button does not work "Font", if the font is specified constants

font-size:16px;
<font size="+3">Assign</font>

Where can discuss the modernization of the examples in AutoIt3.chm? For a better demonstration of the functions and properties.

Edited December 9, 2011 by AZJIO

[Valik]

I made the following list of changes this style needs to be improved:

• Reduce the size of the function/keyword name slightly.
• Reduce the amount of whitespace between sections slightly. Not a significant amount, just a little bit. People were talking about an extra bit of padding left-over from the old theme, try removing that.
• Increase the font in examples slightly.
• The font used on the Introduction/Installation/FAQ (and similar) pages is just slightly too big so it should be reduced a little bit.

From that list the only one trancexx was willing to do was this one:

Reduce the amount of whitespace between sections slightly.  Not a significant amount, just a little bit.  People were talking about an extra bit of padding left-over from the old theme, try removing that.

She refuses to make any of the other required changes - all of which are minor. If you wish for this visual style (with the mentioned changes) to be in the next beta then speak now. Convince her that she is wrong and the visual style is not perfect and needs the listed adjustments. Otherwise the visual style will be removed and we stick with the same look we've had for years.

She won't listen to me, maybe she'll listen to the community instead.

[trancexx]

Valik, the font for other pages is reduced.

edit: and padding people talked about is removed too. You are confusing me now.

Edited December 11, 2011 by trancexx

[Valik]

Valik, the font for pages is reduced.

Oh, so you're being obstinate for even less reason than I realized? What the fuck.

Alright, so she reduced the text in most places, too. So we may lose this theme over the function name being too large and the example font being too small. /facepalm

[Valik]

Actually, it's not even that the function name is too large, it's too much whitespace at the top because we have "Function Reference" then a big whitespace then "Abs" then more whitespace. The problem could be solved by changing it to the MSDN style of using "<name> <type>". For Abs it would "Abs Function" with the removal of the "Function reference" line entirely. Keywords would be listed as such and so forth. The font size would not need to change then.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Valik

[Melba23]

Valik,

•Reduce the size of the function/keyword name slightly.

•Reduce the amount of whitespace between sections slightly. Not a significant amount, just a little bit. People were talking about an extra bit of padding left-over from the old theme, try removing that.

•Increase the font in examples slightly.

•The font used on the Introduction/Installation/FAQ (and similar) pages is just slightly too big so it should be reduced a little bit.

If you wish for this visual style (with the mentioned changes) to be in the next beta then speak now.

Speaking!

The problem could be solved by changing it to the MSDN style of using "<name> <type>"

I would prefer the existing layout, but if the other changes are implemented I could easily live with this.

M23

[Zedna]

She refuses to make any of the other required changes - all of which are minor. If you wish for this visual style (with the mentioned changes) to be in the next beta then speak now. Convince her that she is wrong and the visual style is not perfect and needs the listed adjustments. Otherwise the visual style will be removed and we stick with the same look we've had for years.

If this is offer for voting then I vote for old style which is far better for me. New one is very bad.

[Valik]

I don't like how the example script highlighting no longer matches the default highlighting in SciTE4AutoIt3.

This is a valid point to an extent. I have no vested interest either way in this fight. I would suggest changing SciTE4AutoIt3 but that will cause backlash by people so it may be best to use the same colors by reverting the documentation. Consistency is important.

If this is offer for voting then I vote for old style which is far better for me. New one is very bad.

This is not a vote per-se. The theme stays or goes for mostly bureaucratic reasons rather than aesthetic reasons. Your dislike puts you in the minority of those who have been vocal anyway. Edited December 11, 2011 by Valik

[Jos]

This is a valid point to an extent. I have no vested interest either way in this fight. I would suggest changing SciTE4AutoIt3 but that will cause backlash by people so it may be best to use the same colors by reverting the documentation. Consistency is important.

I have no issue to support any new default color scheme we come up with.

Everybody can make their own setup with SciteConfig and I can easily delver the current color scheme as the Legacy scheme in the installer.

[trancexx]

The size of font for examples is not small. The size of it is 11px to match the size of the font used for the rest of the page (because they are different type of fonts they are rendered differently; Courier New generally takes more space than Segoe UI).

This size could have been 12px but for some reason inside chm that 1px makes bigger difference than it would be expected (making the font much skinnier, to my experience).

Or someone mean even bigger font? That would break the style totally.

Also the new font is rendered bigger than the old one within other browsers than IE for online documentation.

White space is constructive element of new style. It does not distract attention from content, it serves it. Amount of white space around function name is like that not to visually differ from amount of it used for sections separations.

White space causing the scrolling action can't be argument against the style. That's insane.

I need explanation from someone why the amount of used white space is bad except that it makes less information available per square meter causing the unnecessary scrolling. I'll listen to that.

edit:

I have to say this... If no one choose to support the new style I will be forced to revert everything. I was just about to do that when I saw new replies in this thread. It's your choice. Be silent and lose changes. My options were made very clear.

Edited December 11, 2011 by trancexx