Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Keep It Simple, Stupid

Re: RFC: A Design Proposed for Anonymous Monk (logged out view)

by Anonymous Monk
on Feb 01, 2011 at 21:42 UTC ( #885619=note: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

in reply to RFC: A Design Proposed for Anonymous Monk (logged out view)

I see you've put in a lot of work, but as someone who uses the logged out view quite often, i find yours simply unreadable
  • a lot of empty screen space on the right
  • poll is on the bottom (as is chatterbox etc etc ) and its hard to read because there is not enough contrast
  • using sans-serif font (Arial?), and mixing serif/sans-serif
  • lego color scheme for code (hot blue, hot pink, orange, on two shades of brown)
  • code looks ok without js only because the background is ends up whiter, so there is enough contrast for easy reading
  • unreadable link colors (black on dark blue)
  • complete disconnect between node title/content and author, I can't tell who wrote what
  • tumorously dark floating footer which gets clipped, with bizzare prose, and its not even a navigational
  • A visit to the monastery should not begin with It was a dark and gloomy night
You've also chosen a peculiar page to mock up, the monastery Gates, I don't think I've visited that page in years, but it has made this stand out
( by LanX on Jan 03, 2011 at 12:57 ) 7 direct replies Offer your reply
There are 7 replies already and even The real Monastery Gates is providing a link to offer another one reply -- 7 replies is a lot, adding another one without viewing the existing ones would surely lead to duplication

See what it looks like for me

I hope this is helpful

Snooki want smoosh smoosh

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: RFC: A Design Proposed for Anonymous Monk (logged out view)
by luis.roca (Deacon) on Feb 02, 2011 at 14:30 UTC

    See what it looks like for me

       I hope this is helpful

    I appreciate that you took the time in writing your critique. I would like to point out again that I realize there will be users who will see a poorly rendered version of the design. Please feel confident that is NOT the design I have intended for Perl Monks.

    Again, for anyone who is having difficulties seeing the site (ie: only one column is visible, extremely poor contrast etc.)

  • Please View the Following Screen Shot :
  • I do apologize to anyone who is having trouble seeing the html page. If you are someone who is seeing the site as described by Anonymous Monk above, post here or msg me and include your specs if possible (browser, screen size and resolution). This will be a big help when I make corrections. I will update the document above with the specs users are most likely to have viewing difficulty and when the corrections for those specs have been made.

    Thanks again for the feedback

    "...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." Don Quixote

      From looking at the linked browsershots page, it looks like the vast majority of browsers didn't render it as you intended. So you already have a whole slew of "spec" examples that demonstrate bad rendering.

      - tye        

        Using a tool like is great but are the vast majority of browsers where the site is rendering poorly represented by PerlMonks visitors? There was no way for me to know that until I posted this and heard back from enough Monks and/or we have site statistics available. (Even from Google Analytics:)

        The test also leaves out a few important notes such as resolution (was the test done for a resolution of 800, 1024?). It also excludes a few key operating systems like Mac OSX and recent versions of Windows. That's unless I'm the only person visiting PerlMonks on a Mac and none of our members are using Windows 7 but I would love to know that before setting off on making corrections.

        I actually don't suspect that it's a browser problem that some people are having. It seems that the second column in particular is wrapping under the first at resolutions of 800 and below. (I would be thankful to get confirmation on that.)

        P.S. I did make corrections to the wrapping (as you suggested) which improved that result (caused by the first column's width) when I narrowed my browser window on a few laptops. I didn't ignore your advice tye ;)

        "...the adversities born of well-placed thoughts should be considered mercies rather than misfortunes." Don Quixote
Re^2: RFC: A Design Proposed for Anonymous Monk (logged out view)
by jdporter (Canon) on Feb 02, 2011 at 04:29 UTC

    Well your link certainly wasn't helpful. It almost makes your post look like spam.

      The link to browsershots? That was quite interesting and seemed quite useful. It certainly showed similar bad rendering to what I saw (and informed luis.roca of prior to his posting). How does that look like spam to you?

      - tye        

        I suspect that fact that browsershots is surrounded on 3 sides by flashing / blinking / animated adverts might be part of it.

        Once you get round them (in my case, finally installing adblock for chrome), it's not a bad site and potentially very useful

        ok, turns out it was all the ads, I never even saw the intended content. (was on a computer at work with no ad-blocking software.) yes, it is quite cool indeed.

        that link (browsershots) leads to an empty site in my case. I suspect Adblock plus =)

Log In?

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: note [id://885619]
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others making s'mores by the fire in the courtyard of the Monastery: (6)
As of 2020-11-27 14:04 GMT
Find Nodes?
    Voting Booth?

    No recent polls found