Re: [RFC/PATCH 2/8] docbook: improve css style

From: Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com>
Date: Mar 24, 2009, 07:52 UTC
Message-ID: <94a0d4530903240052x2c6b882aub7de6d46e9949ddb@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <7vwsaf4qqx.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 4:08 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 11 quoted lines

> Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> Also, it seems that everything which is not black is blue, except for
>>> terms, which are green and slanted. I don't think that looks nice
>>> together. How about slanted blue?
>>
>> What's wrong with having 2 colors?
>
> I personally also do not like pages that are too colorful.  If you can
> convey the same information with smaller number of colors, please try to
> do so.  And remember that some people are colour-challenged.

1 more color makes a page 'too colorful'? Keep in mind that we already are using 2 colors of blue, links by default have yet another color of blue and visited links have a magenta color.

The color-challenged people would already see that text as italic, there's no reason for the non-color-challenged people to _not_ take advantage of being able to distinguish a different color. If you don't like green, then fine, the other options are a) pick a different color b) make the text bold.

I think bold is too distracting and a color that is a) hue-similar to blue and b) closely dark to black, is the best choice: green.

> By the way, are you using a font that is a bit smaller than the body text
> to render the examples?  I find it harder to read.

Why do people have problems reading small fonts? That's exactly the same font-size you'll see on Wikipedia, Google, and many other sites: 'small'. Do you have problems reading Wikipedia?

But meh, I'll revert it.

Show 9 quoted lines

> I thought that browsers typically have user control to let you set the
> standard font size and choice independently for proportional, serif, sans
> and mono, and people who want to see typewriter face in smaller font would
> already have set their browser to do so (I don't do so myself because I'd
> rather want to see them in uniform size).  I haven't checked your CSS, but
> if you are doing "monospace smaller than usual", aren't you effectively
> (1) doing disservice to people like me, and (2) doing disservice to people
> who do want smaller monospace and configured their browser already (the
> outcome would be doubly smaller, which may become too small)?

By that logic no web site should ever choose a different font-size than 'normal', and of course they do.

-- 
Felipe Contreras