Rubyinstaller devel - Aug 2009 - rubyinstaller.org placeholder page needs feedback

Take a look at http://rubyinstaller.org/proto/ when you get a chance.

If all looks stable, I''ll finish reviewing with Pavel to ensure
it''s close enought to the real site.

I''m currently of the mindset that it''s good enough to replace
our "Coming soon" placeholder once I shrink the whitespace between the
top graphic band and the lower icon band.  I don''t think we need to
feel the need to add text before going live with this simple static page.

Any additional text/graphics/etc you think we need?

So far the only problem I''ve found is with IE6/Win2K in which the lower
band of icons wraps.  I''ll manually fix the CSS later like I did the
top nav menu.  Ah...IE6...

Haven''t checked on my Firefox/Xubuntu system and have no feedback from
a Mac or other *nix browers.  Graphics look great in elinks, though.



Things To Consider
=================
* uses standard CSS (blueprintcss) and JavaScript (JQuery) libraries for ease of
growth (if needed) and maintenance rather than a bunch of customizations.  OK, I
do tweak things a bit when needed :)

* uses xhtml 1.0 rather than html 4.01; works on IE6 so I don''t expect
this to be an issue

* not all linking behavior enabled: About in the top nav bar, the Mailing List
icon, and the Add-on button are currently disabled.

* double-check whether the currently linking targets make sense

* uses JavaScript for interactivity and navigation.  The requirement for having
js enabled in the browser is much less concerning to me these days as most
people already have js enabled so they can interact with other mainstream sites.
I do plan to implement something better for notification if js disabled.

* added an "Ad-ons" button that will be linked to a page that will
describe the optional, but very helpful, add-on tools.  Currently I plan to
document "rake-compiler" and the "DevKit".  What else should
be highlighted?

* I''m for getting rid of the current
http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/ page and simply redirecting to the
appropriate RubyForge download page once the "Add-on" page is created
and the previews files are available on RubyForge.  Is this a good idea?

* a second set of eyes on the code is always helpful.  The key files are:

http://rubyinstaller.org/proto/index.html
http://rubyinstaller.org/proto/styles/site.css
http://rubyinstaller.org/proto/scripts/site.js

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Jon<jon.forums at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Take a look at http://rubyinstaller.org/proto/ when you get a chance.
>
Looks good, read below for my comments.
> If all looks stable, I''ll finish reviewing with Pavel to ensure
it''s close enought to the real site.
>
> I''m currently of the mindset that it''s good enough to
replace our "Coming soon" placeholder once I shrink the whitespace
between the top graphic band and the lower icon band. ?I don''t think we
need to feel the need to add text before going live with this simple static
page.
>
> Any additional text/graphics/etc you think we need?
>
* The Icon, iso and logo are not correct.

* The marketing text about "includes dozens of popular extensions" is
no longer correct.

* Help should link to community page in the wiki. For the time being
Help, mailing list and contribute should point to the same page.

* About is not linking anywhere.

* It is missing the copyright about the design (Pavel Macek) and the
conversion to HTML done by Jon.
> So far the only problem I''ve found is with IE6/Win2K in which the
lower band of icons wraps. ?I''ll manually fix the CSS later like I did
the top nav menu. ?Ah...IE6...
>
Been tempted:
http://www.ie6nomore.com/

But no, not for now :-)
> Haven''t checked on my Firefox/Xubuntu system and have no feedback
from a Mac or other *nix browers.
?Graphics look great in elinks, though.
>
Looks good on Firefox and Chrome on Windows, and as a placeholder, is
much more than what we can ask.

Thank you Jon.
> [snip]
> * I''m for getting rid of the current
http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/ page and simply redirecting to the
appropriate RubyForge download page once the "Add-on" page is created
and the previews files are available on RubyForge. ?Is this a good idea?
>
We had 5GB of traffic just for August, I''m getting worried that my
current hosting provider call me to my cell phone.

So the move to RubyForge will be with preview2.
> * a second set of eyes on the code is always helpful. ?The key files are:
>
Can''t comment too much on HTML and CSS, but will take a look.

Thank you again.
-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 7:29 PM, Luis Lavena<luislavena at gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 2:57 PM, Jon<jon.forums at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Take a look at http://rubyinstaller.org/proto/ when you get a chance.
>>
Very nice.  The only question I have is with the links.  Why the use
of js, instead of regular anchor tags?  Just curious.  I''m used to
having the link displayed in my status bar is all.
>
> * Help should link to community page in the wiki. For the time being
> Help, mailing list and contribute should point to the same page.
I''m planning on starting a "Contribute" page in the wiki.  I
have a
lot on my plate right now though, so I''m not sure when I''ll
get to it.
 I need to get the CHM stuff out the door first ;-)
>
> * About is not linking anywhere.
>
The content on the home page of the wiki would work well for an
"About" page.

Thanks, Jon.

Gordon

On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 9:52 PM, Gordon Thiesfeld<gthiesfeld at gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> Very nice. ?The only question I have is with the links. ?Why the use
> of js, instead of regular anchor tags? ?Just curious. ?I''m used to
> having the link displayed in my status bar is all.
Noticed that but didn''t had the time to look at the details.

A tags are always better, since would let crawlers index it properly.
>> * Help should link to community page in the wiki. For the time being
>> Help, mailing list and contribute should point to the same page.
>
> I''m planning on starting a "Contribute" page in the
wiki. ?I have a
> lot on my plate right now though, so I''m not sure when
I''ll get to it.
> ?I need to get the CHM stuff out the door first ;-)
>
Nono, focus on CHM stuff, please, pretty please? :-D

Cheers,
-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

> Very nice.  The only question I have is with the links.  Why the use
> of js, instead of regular anchor tags?  Just curious.  I''m used to
> having the link displayed in my status bar is all.
Good point.  Cleaner html from my perspective is why I like to use js.  I just
don''t the way things look when a''s wrap div''s, etc.

That said, I''m going to mod it to go back to using links for multiple
reasons including search engine crawlers.  I also think elinks will think
there''s no links.  While elinks support isn''t critical, I just
like elinks :)

> > * About is not linking anywhere.
> 
> The content on the home page of the wiki would work well for an
"About" page.

Agreed.  I''ll make the change.

2009/8/10 Jon <jon.forums at gmail.com>:
>> Very nice. ?The only question I have is with the links. ?Why the use
>> of js, instead of regular anchor tags? ?Just curious. ?I''m
used to
>> having the link displayed in my status bar is all.
>
> Good point. ?Cleaner html from my perspective is why I like to use js. ?I
just don''t the way things look when a''s wrap div''s,
etc.
>
> That said, I''m going to mod it to go back to using links for
multiple reasons including search engine crawlers. ?I also think elinks will
think there''s no links. ?While elinks support isn''t critical,
I just like elinks :)
Yes, please.

While JS links may work for some (or even quite a few) there are still
situations when they fail miserably. A site that has some content
besides showing off JavaScript gimmicks should work without
JavaScript.

Thanks

Michal

> * The Icon, iso and logo are not correct.
I''ll use the png you put on the rubyinstaller google group and make a
quick mod to the logo as a prototype for Pavel to look at.  I''ll also
send Pavel an email and as him to update the graphics appropriately.

I''m not following you on the what''s not correct with the Icon
and iso.

> * The marketing text about "includes dozens of popular
extensions" is
> no longer correct.
Agreed.

What about the .so''s and .dll''s you put in above and beyond
what''s in the mswin binary download from ruby-lang.org?  Do these count
as "popular extensions" in your mind, or just basic requirements that
need to be there in the first place?

 
> * Help should link to community page in the wiki. For the time being
> Help, mailing list and contribute should point to the same page.
OK
 
> * About is not linking anywhere.
Will be changed to link to the homepage of our GitHub wiki

 
> * It is missing the copyright about the design (Pavel Macek) and the
> conversion to HTML done by Jon.
Will put in a placeholder in the footer for review.

> > * I''m for getting rid of the current
http://rubyinstaller.org/downloads/ page and simply redirecting to the
appropriate RubyForge download page once the "Add-on" page is created
and the previews files are available on RubyForge. ?Is this a good idea?
> 
> We had 5GB of traffic just for August, I''m getting worried that my
> current hosting provider call me to my cell phone.
> 
> So the move to RubyForge will be with preview2.

I''ll work on the links and/or an updated proto download page that links
to RubyForge.

Two followup issues:

1) Do we need to touch base with the RubyForge folks on any potential bandwidth
issues given the previous popularity of OCI and our expected installer size?

2) Where will we be hosting the 12MB+ DevKit?  Sourceforge?


Jon

Hey Jon,

On 08/08/2009 18:57, Jon wrote:
> Take a look at http://rubyinstaller.org/proto/ when you get a chance.
Great job!

Looking good in IE 7 & 8 on Vista. IE6 is almost there - I''m seeing
the
same problem you have already identified. IE5... don''t even go there.
;)

Also looking fine on Safari 4, Opera 9 & 10, Chrome and Firefox.

Something that immediately occurred to me: nowhere does it mention that 
this is RubyInstaller *for Windows*. Although pretty obvious to those in 
the community, for beginners - who are a large part of the audience - it 
might not be so obvious.

Perhaps instead of "one-click away" (which I think is a bit inaccurate
and somewhat redundant these days) it should say "for Windows"
instead.
And then in the intro text say, "This is a self-contained installer for 
Windows that..."

Regarding the HTML, I agree with the points others have made: use of JS 
for links is making my teeth itch. ;) The url attribute in the divs is 
rather unorthadox (it doesn''t exist in the XHTML spec). But I see from 
another message that you''re already committed changing that. The de 
facto standard for marking-up a nav list is usually as an unordered 
list, something like this:

<ul id="nav">
   <li><a href="foo">About</a></li>
   <li><a href="bar">Download</a></li>
   [...]
</ul>

Wrapping that in a div and applying the id="nav" to the div instead of
the ul is also a common pattern. I would hazard a guess that Google 
recognises this pattern and indexes accordingly. Not that I think it 
matters right here and now as this page is only temporary, but for the 
main site, we should be using best-practices.

The growing consensus in the web design community is that writing markup 
with HTML 5 semantics in mind is a sensible idea. Think of it as 
convention over configuration for HTML. Here are some articles explaining:

Preparing for HTML5 with Semantic Class Names:
http://bit.ly/17jiQ3

More on developing naming conventions, Microformats and HTML5:
http://bit.ly/38jiFi

Cheatsheet:
http://bit.ly/WXReT

The Rise of HTML5:
http://adactio.com/journal/1540

Again, not that it matters a huge deal now, but I''d wager that 
Google/Bing will be aware of these semantics and weight their indexes 
accordingly in future, so this is definitely an issue for the main site. 
I raise it here mainly for the record and as a recommendation for when 
coding of the main site begins in earnest.

Radiant now uses HAML doesn''t it? This should actually make it 
super-easy to write and maintain the HTML.

Charles

On 12/08/2009 03:53, Jon wrote:
> I''ve had similar thoughts and think your suggestion would be fine
as long as we use Windows(R) or Windows(TM) or something similar.  I''ll
check around a bit, but do you know for sure what should be used?
It''s not necessary to put (R) and (TM) all over the place according to 
the official MS guidelines: http://bit.ly/1967yF

The key parts are, I believe, these:

***

Use Trademark Notices
Include an attribution of Microsoft ownership of the Windows trademark 
in the credit notice section of your documentation or advertisement. 
Follow this format:
     * Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the 
United States and other countries.

***

You may use the Windows trademark in a referential phrase such as "works 
with Windows XP," "runs on Windows 2000," "for use with
Windows," "for
Windows," or "compatible with Windows XP." (If your product works
with
only one version of a Windows product, refer to that version 
specifically.) Maintain a visual distinction between your company and 
product name and the Windows trademark. (Windows should be less prominent.)

***

I think RubyInstaller with a smaller for Windows underneath it fits that 
second guideline quite nicely.

The buttons seem to be working fine in all of the browsers I mentioned 
before. If you really wanted to make the page validate (as an academic 
exercise perhaps ;) ) then I think all you''d need to do is change the 
<div>s that are inside the <a> tags to <span>s and declare 
display:block; on them in the CSS.

Charles

On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Charles
Roper<reachme at charlesroper.co.uk> wrote:
> On 12/08/2009 03:53, Jon wrote:
>>
>> I''ve had similar thoughts and think your suggestion would be
fine as long
>> as we use Windows(R) or Windows(TM) or something similar.
?I''ll check around
>> a bit, but do you know for sure what should be used?
>
> It''s not necessary to put (R) and (TM) all over the place
according to the
> official MS guidelines: http://bit.ly/1967yF
>
> The key parts are, I believe, these:
>
> ***
>
> Use Trademark Notices
> Include an attribution of Microsoft ownership of the Windows trademark in
> the credit notice section of your documentation or advertisement. Follow
> this format:
> ? ?* Windows is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation in the
> United States and other countries.
>
> ***
>
> You may use the Windows trademark in a referential phrase such as
"works
> with Windows XP," "runs on Windows 2000," "for use with
Windows," "for
> Windows," or "compatible with Windows XP." (If your product
works with only
> one version of a Windows product, refer to that version specifically.)
> Maintain a visual distinction between your company and product name and the
> Windows trademark. (Windows should be less prominent.)
>
> ***
>
> I think RubyInstaller with a smaller for Windows underneath it fits that
> second guideline quite nicely.
>
For the logo I can request the designer the original Adobe Illustrator
files or curves one for someone to hack it.

I''m cool with "for Windows". One-Click away was a legacy
statement
instead of "One-Click Ruby Installer", which is also misleading.
> The buttons seem to be working fine in all of the browsers I mentioned
> before. If you really wanted to make the page validate (as an academic
> exercise perhaps ;) ) then I think all you''d need to do is change
the <div>s
> that are inside the <a> tags to <span>s and declare
display:block; on them
> in the CSS.
>
Yes, divs inside links are invalid.
-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

On 11/08/2009 21:56, Luis Lavena wrote:
> Yes, divs inside links are invalid.
Interestingly enough, this is actually valid in HTML 5. Sounds like it 
could suffer from some browser rendering weirdness, though. Details here:

http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2009/01/02/an-event-apart-and-html-5/

Again, Haml makes it easy to output HTML 5, so this could be the way to go.

Charles

> Looking good in IE 7 & 8 on Vista. IE6 is almost there - I''m
seeing the
> same problem you have already identified. IE5... don''t even go
there. ;)
> 
> Also looking fine on Safari 4, Opera 9 & 10, Chrome and Firefox.
Thanks for checking these!

FYI, on my time-stealing list, my remaining TODO items are:

* Clean up IE6 lower icon bar issue
* Check XUbuntu/FF
* Create an Add-on placeholder page
* Tweak the existing Download placeholder page
* Clean up front summary text

 
> Something that immediately occurred to me: nowhere does it mention that 
> this is RubyInstaller *for Windows*. Although pretty obvious to those in 
> the community, for beginners - who are a large part of the audience - it 
> might not be so obvious.
> 
> Perhaps instead of "one-click away" (which I think is a bit
inaccurate
> and somewhat redundant these days) it should say "for Windows"
instead.
> And then in the intro text say, "This is a self-contained installer
for
> Windows that..."
I''ve had similar thoughts and think your suggestion would be fine as
long as we use Windows(R) or Windows(TM) or something similar.  I''ll
check around a bit, but do you know for sure what should be used?

 
> Regarding the HTML, I agree with the points others have made: use of JS 
> for links is making my teeth itch. ;) The url attribute in the divs is 
> rather unorthadox (it doesn''t exist in the XHTML spec).
Would hate for your teeth to itch, except for maybe from a Macallan 25 :)

The url attribute is gone (as well as those W3C validation errors) but as
I''m doing quick-n-dirty "HTML/CSS div buttons" and wrapping
them in links, we''re still failing validation.  That said, things seem
to be working in all the major browsers.

I want to try one more thing to get XHTML valid, but I''m not that
concerned as I see no need to put an ugly W3C graphic on the page, and
it''s a placeholder page until the real site comes up.

As Pavel generates the graphic buttons to use for the real site, I''ll
move them over to our placeholder page.  That said, please let me know if the
current "buttons" cause problems in any of the browsers.

Thanks for the nav feedback and I''ve made the change just a few minutes
ago and am using something like the following with some CSS trickery

<div id="navbar">
   <a href="foo">About</a>
   ...
</div>

seems to be working OK and is fewer keystrokes :)  check out the current navbar
and see if you have any problems.

> The growing consensus in the web design community is that writing markup 
> with HTML 5 semantics in mind is a sensible idea.
Good links, thanks!

 
> Radiant now uses HAML doesn''t it? This should actually make it 
> super-easy to write and maintain the HTML.
FWIW, I''m a fan of Sinatra + HAML + Sequel + Rack.  Would be kinda cool
to have done our placeholder site done using Sinatra. :)

2009/8/12 Jon <jon.forums at gmail.com>:
>> Looking good in IE 7 & 8 on Vista. IE6 is almost there -
I''m seeing the
>> same problem you have already identified. IE5... don''t even go
there. ;)
>>
>> Also looking fine on Safari 4, Opera 9 & 10, Chrome and Firefox.
>
> Thanks for checking these!
>
> FYI, on my time-stealing list, my remaining TODO items are:
>
> * Clean up IE6 lower icon bar issue
> * Check XUbuntu/FF
> * Create an Add-on placeholder page
> * Tweak the existing Download placeholder page
> * Clean up front summary text
>
As far as I can tell there is no problem with the page in FF/Debian
and the links are now non-js so there should be no problem with them
either.

BTW noscript was at some point packaged for Ubuntu and recommended or
suggested by Firefox so there might be quite a few people with JS
turned off.

One minor nitpick is the colourful gem - I think the page looked
better with the red one at the top, it was somewhat consistent with
those gems in the box. But if the colourful one is going to be the
official logo I guess it should be there.

Thanks

Michal

Hello Guys,

Sorry for my late chime in on this conversation...

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Michal Suchanek<hramrach at centrum.cz>
wrote:
> 2009/8/12 Jon <jon.forums at gmail.com>:
>>> Looking good in IE 7 & 8 on Vista. IE6 is almost there -
I''m seeing the
>>> same problem you have already identified. IE5... don''t
even go there. ;)
>>>
>>> Also looking fine on Safari 4, Opera 9 & 10, Chrome and
Firefox.
>>
>> Thanks for checking these!
>>
>> FYI, on my time-stealing list, my remaining TODO items are:
>>
>> * Clean up IE6 lower icon bar issue
>> * Check XUbuntu/FF
>> * Create an Add-on placeholder page
>> * Tweak the existing Download placeholder page
>> * Clean up front summary text
>>
>
> As far as I can tell there is no problem with the page in FF/Debian
> and the links are now non-js so there should be no problem with them
> either.
>
> BTW noscript was at some point packaged for Ubuntu and recommended or
> suggested by Firefox so there might be quite a few people with JS
> turned off.
>
> One minor nitpick is the colourful gem - I think the page looked
> better with the red one at the top, it was somewhat consistent with
> those gems in the box. But if the colourful one is going to be the
> official logo I guess it should be there.
>
Logo explained here, in case the link got lost:

http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/06/13/rubyinstaller-designs-and-deadline-details/

As commented to Jon, I''m not fond with getting rid of it, as was
designed, by free by Rodolfo Budeguer.

As for the "for Windows" legend, I know was a 5 minutes wrap up,
spacing, mostly white one, is highly important on designs.

I''m fond with the change of moniker and get rid of the misleading
"One-Click", so "for Windows" should follow the exact same
spacing
rules that "one-click away" legend has.

This means "for Windows" should only be expanded through
"Installer"
word, and not over Ruby safe area.

Apologizes to send a someway convoluted response but work has been
overwhelming the past weeks.

-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

2009/8/12 Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com>:
> Hello Guys,
>
> Sorry for my late chime in on this conversation...
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Michal Suchanek<hramrach at
centrum.cz> wrote:
>> 2009/8/12 Jon <jon.forums at gmail.com>:
>>>> Looking good in IE 7 & 8 on Vista. IE6 is almost there -
I''m seeing the
>>>> same problem you have already identified. IE5... don''t
even go there. ;)
>>>>
>>>> Also looking fine on Safari 4, Opera 9 & 10, Chrome and
Firefox.
>>>
>>> Thanks for checking these!
>>>
>>> FYI, on my time-stealing list, my remaining TODO items are:
>>>
>>> * Clean up IE6 lower icon bar issue
>>> * Check XUbuntu/FF
>>> * Create an Add-on placeholder page
>>> * Tweak the existing Download placeholder page
>>> * Clean up front summary text
>>>
>>
>> As far as I can tell there is no problem with the page in FF/Debian
>> and the links are now non-js so there should be no problem with them
>> either.
>>
>> BTW noscript was at some point packaged for Ubuntu and recommended or
>> suggested by Firefox so there might be quite a few people with JS
>> turned off.
>>
>> One minor nitpick is the colourful gem - I think the page looked
>> better with the red one at the top, it was somewhat consistent with
>> those gems in the box. But if the colourful one is going to be the
>> official logo I guess it should be there.
>>
>
> Logo explained here, in case the link got lost:
>
>
http://blog.mmediasys.com/2009/06/13/rubyinstaller-designs-and-deadline-details/
>
> As commented to Jon, I''m not fond with getting rid of it, as was
> designed, by free by Rodolfo Budeguer.
>
As mentioned in the blog post the diamond cut ruby is used mostly,
probably because it is easy to recognize and associate with the ruby
language.

The problem I see with the colourful logo is that the colors do not
match the geometry (or something like that) which makes it somewhat
hard to make out the shape leaving the impression of several colourful
spots and polygons, not that of a compact recognizable shape.

Thanks

Michal

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Michal Suchanek<hramrach at centrum.cz>
wrote:
> [...]
>
> As mentioned in the blog post the diamond cut ruby is used mostly,
> probably because it is easy to recognize and associate with the ruby
> language.
Yes, and I personally got tired of that particular shape, perhaps that
biased the design exploration by Rodolfo.
> The problem I see with the colourful logo is that the colors do not
> match the geometry (or something like that) which makes it somewhat
> hard to make out the shape leaving the impression of several colourful
> spots and polygons, not that of a compact recognizable shape.
>
Windows colors == RubyInstaller colors.

Shape: rectangular faceted cut.

Plain representations sucks. Perhaps I can ask Rodolfo to soften it
and make it clear the shape.

Right now the installer and the ruby executable files uses it, so
change the icon will slow down another release.

-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

2009/8/12 Luis Lavena <luislavena at gmail.com>:
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 8:36 AM, Michal Suchanek<hramrach at
centrum.cz> wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> As mentioned in the blog post the diamond cut ruby is used mostly,
>> probably because it is easy to recognize and associate with the ruby
>> language.
>
> Yes, and I personally got tired of that particular shape, perhaps that
> biased the design exploration by Rodolfo.
>
>> The problem I see with the colourful logo is that the colors do not
>> match the geometry (or something like that) which makes it somewhat
>> hard to make out the shape leaving the impression of several colourful
>> spots and polygons, not that of a compact recognizable shape.
>>
>
> Windows colors == RubyInstaller colors.
>
> Shape: rectangular faceted cut.
>
> Plain representations sucks. Perhaps I can ask Rodolfo to soften it
> and make it clear the shape.
>
> Right now the installer and the ruby executable files uses it, so
> change the icon will slow down another release.
>
It''s a prerelease so I do not see any problem if it has logo that may
changes in the future, especially if it changes only to a clearer
version of the same shape.

Thanks

Michal

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Jon<jon.forums at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> On 11/08/2009 21:56, Luis Lavena wrote:
>> > Yes, divs inside links are invalid.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, this is actually valid in HTML 5. Sounds like it
>> could suffer from some browser rendering weirdness, though. Details
here:
>>
>> http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2009/01/02/an-event-apart-and-html-5/
>
> The W3C Validator Wizard wants to ban the page for the ugly
divs-inside-links heresy :)
>
> But...
>
> These HTML/CSS buttons are no more than a short-term hack to help get us a
quick, usable, and decent looking placeholder page while Pavel develops the
really cool site. ?I plan to back fill them with Pavel''s real buttons
when they''re available.
>
> As ugly and as uncompliant as they are, while I''m not tied to them
in any way, if they work across our browsers of interest, let''s keep
them and move on to completing the other tasks on the TODO list.
>
Sounds good, let''s not turn this into a bike shed conversation.
-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Jon<jon.forums at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > It''s not necessary to put (R) and (TM) all over the place
according to the
>> > official MS guidelines: http://bit.ly/1967yF
>> >
>>
>> I''m cool with "for Windows". One-Click away was a
legacy statement
>> instead of "One-Click Ruby Installer", which is also
misleading.
>
> Are we OK with the current incarnation of the "for Windows" logo
and text?
>
Small font, if possible to match font thickness that previous
"one-click away" legend had.
> Or would you like me to shrink the size of the "for Windows" and
change to "for Windows(R)"?
No need for (R), as previous mentioned here, and shrink it in size, as
commented on another message.

-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 11:58 PM, Jon<jon.forums at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> Small font, if possible to match font thickness that previous
>> "one-click away" legend had.
>
> Done.
>
> The Gimp image editing store is open for about another 30 minutes. ?Let me
know if you''d like any changes.
Enough bugging you with that, let''s move forward :D

-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Jon<jon.forums at gmail.com>
wrote:
>> > The Gimp image editing store is open for about another 30 minutes.
?Let me know if you''d like any changes.
>>
>> Enough bugging you with that, let''s move forward :D
>
> Branding an look-and-feel is SO important that we should get it exactly how
you want it.
>
> I have no problem making the mods until you think it''s perfect.
?So if you want any tweaks such as moving by a few pixels, sizing, color, font
(currently uses Tahoma Bold) etc. let me know.
Logos can be adjusted over time, even Mozilla has done it, so we can
survive with what we have for now.

-- 
Luis Lavena
AREA 17
-
Perfection in design is achieved not when there is nothing more to add,
but rather when there is nothing more to take away.
Antoine de Saint-Exup?ry

> On 11/08/2009 21:56, Luis Lavena wrote:
> > Yes, divs inside links are invalid.
> 
> Interestingly enough, this is actually valid in HTML 5. Sounds like it 
> could suffer from some browser rendering weirdness, though. Details here:
> 
> http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2009/01/02/an-event-apart-and-html-5/
The W3C Validator Wizard wants to ban the page for the ugly divs-inside-links
heresy :)

But...

These HTML/CSS buttons are no more than a short-term hack to help get us a
quick, usable, and decent looking placeholder page while Pavel develops the
really cool site.  I plan to back fill them with Pavel''s real buttons
when they''re available.

As ugly and as uncompliant as they are, while I''m not tied to them in
any way, if they work across our browsers of interest, let''s keep them
and move on to completing the other tasks on the TODO list.

Jon

> > It''s not necessary to put (R) and (TM) all over the place
according to the
> > official MS guidelines: http://bit.ly/1967yF
> >
> 
> I''m cool with "for Windows". One-Click away was a legacy
statement
> instead of "One-Click Ruby Installer", which is also misleading.
Are we OK with the current incarnation of the "for Windows" logo and
text?

Or would you like me to shrink the size of the "for Windows" and
change to "for Windows(R)"?

> Sounds good, let''s not turn this into a bike shed conversation.
There''s 0% chance of bike shedding on this one.

Gordon and Michal gave great and direct (very important to be direct and clear
in my mind) feedback to help make the tradeoff decisions.

I think we''re done on this one unless there''s a need to change
for Windows trademark concerns.

Jon

> Small font, if possible to match font thickness that previous
> "one-click away" legend had.
Done.

The Gimp image editing store is open for about another 30 minutes.  Let me know
if you''d like any changes.

> > The Gimp image editing store is open for about another 30 minutes.
?Let me know if you''d like any changes.
> 
> Enough bugging you with that, let''s move forward :D
Branding an look-and-feel is SO important that we should get it exactly how you
want it.

I have no problem making the mods until you think it''s perfect.  So if
you want any tweaks such as moving by a few pixels, sizing, color, font
(currently uses Tahoma Bold) etc. let me know.

On 13/08/2009 02:51, Jon wrote:
>> On 11/08/2009 21:56, Luis Lavena wrote:
>>> Yes, divs inside links are invalid.
>>
>> Interestingly enough, this is actually valid in HTML 5. Sounds like it
>> could suffer from some browser rendering weirdness, though. Details
here:
>>
>> http://meyerweb.com/eric/thoughts/2009/01/02/an-event-apart-and-html-5/
>
> These HTML/CSS buttons are no more than a short-term hack to help get us a
quick, usable, and decent looking placeholder page while Pavel develops the
really cool site.  I plan to back fill them with Pavel''s real buttons
when they''re available.
Yes, understood. I raised the fact that block-level element inside links 
are actually now perfectly valid in HTML 5 because I thought it was 
interesting in light of our discussion, rather than as a suggestion you 
should be implementing it. :)

I do, however, think it would be a good idea to use HTML 5 for the main 
site.

I can help with that if you like?

Charles

On 12/08/2009 16:45, Luis Lavena wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 12:41 AM, Jon<jon.forums at gmail.com> 
wrote:
>> Branding an look-and-feel is SO important that we should get it exactly
how you want it.
>>
>> I have no problem making the mods until you think it''s
perfect.  So if you want any tweaks such as moving by a few pixels, sizing,
color, font (currently uses Tahoma Bold) etc. let me know.
>
> Logos can be adjusted over time, even Mozilla has done it, so we can
> survive with what we have for now.
Jon/Luis,

The main font in the logo is something very close to Fruitger, which I 
have installed on my system. If you send me the original artwork, I can 
tweak it for you. Will only take 5 mins.

Charles

> Yes, understood. I raised the fact that block-level element inside links 
> are actually now perfectly valid in HTML 5 because I thought it was 
> interesting in light of our discussion, rather than as a suggestion you 
> should be implementing it. :)
I''m glad you raised the issues and appreciate the links you provided as
I haven''t been paying that much attention to HTML 5 recently. 
I''ve always been a fan of Eric Meyer too. Thanks.

> I do, however, think it would be a good idea to use HTML 5 for the main 
> site.
> 
> I can help with that if you like?
> 
> Charles
I''ve passed this along to Pavel who''s doing the real site.

I think for our little placeholder site we''re OK with XHTML as these
pages go away when Pavel''s finished.  I''ve got just a bit more
I want to do (Add-ons page primarily) and them I''m done with the
develop-in-10-minute-blocks-when-you-find-the-time :)

Thanks again for taking the time to double check the pages/HTML/CSS as well as
your feedback.

Jon

On 13/08/2009 09:08, Charles Roper wrote:
> The main font in the logo is something very close to Fruitger
That should of course be "Frutiger".

Charles