CSS for the LDP?

Saqib Ali asks: "Over at The Linux Documentation Project there is a lengthy discussion going on about whether to use CSS (Cascading Style Sheets) to improve the presentation of the documents. I support the use of CSS to improve the image/formatting of the document, and improve readability. I understand that content is more important than the presentation, but it can't hurt to improve both. There are others who think we should not get involved the presentation layer, and mainly concentrate on the content. Since, most Slashdot readers are Linux users, and might have visited the LDP once or twice, I would like to poll them on what they think about implementing and using nice CSS for the documents on the Linux Document Project website. I've written a CSS for this purpose that is available here, and some sample documents available in this weblog. Any thoughts? Any pros and cons on using CSS to improve presentation?"

Comments

What?

[93 Escort Wagon]

I know this is a bit of a tangent, but...

"Most Slashdot readers are Linux users" - seriously? I know there's a strong anti-MS contingent, but this can't be true. Is there data to back that up or are you just talking out of your, er, hat?

Perception is more important than reality.

[steve buttgereit]

I can't remember who said that long ago, but it is an important axiom.

Many readers will tune out or find it even daunting to jump into a document that doesn't make an effort to present itself well. Even when the content is top notch, weak presentation will leave a poor first impressions placing the author on the defensive from the get-go. That's not to say good presentation will save a bad document... but every little bit helps!

If using CSS makes the documentation look more professional, more organized, easier on the eyes, and more consistient in presentation I say go for it. Just don't fall into the mistake of overdoing it and continuously changing the presentation... then effort will be wasted.

One final point: corporations (including Microsoft :-) ) pay lots of money to be sure documentation is clear and attractive. Without commenting on success, they do spend those dollars and make the effort for a reason.

Cheers!

Re:Excellent idea.

[bbsguru]

The idea is the thing, right? It's all about the content after all..

No, it isn't. It's also about communication, and to the extent that better presentation helps communicate more clearly, CSS should be used. The best ideas that are never heard matter not.

Don't let the presentation get in the way of the content? Exactly. But don't let the lack of presentation take away from it either.

Printing: Another Advantage of CSS

[TheViewFromTheGround]

I think it goes without saying that Linux folks should embrace CSS. It's sort of a no-brainer. That being said, another advantage is style-sheets for different media. In particular, LDP pages are likely to be printed (I printed one the other night for a Linux install where I didn't have a live Internet connection), and even with all the problems, a smart designer can make very nice print stylesheets that use serif fonts (not so good on screen, very good on paper from a readability standpoint), add banners that print on each page, etc. This assumes a well-structured document that the CSS is styling, but that's a big advantage.

Docs should be semantically marked up anyways

[count0]

I think any CSS detractors are missing the point - docs should be marked up consistently, with H1, H2, etc. Particular semantic types (like author) could be added as styles for particular tags e.g. Adding CSS would be relatively simple on top of semantically structured docs.

Re:Docs should be semantically marked up anyways

[wheany]

I knew there had to be someone who had some sense left. This was the real point from the start. Assuming the documentation is already in html, if you can't just "drop in" some CSS to make it prettier, there is something wrong with the markup.

And if that's the case, you need to fix the html first.

Re:Great examples as to why they SHOULD NOT use CS

[Cameroon]

Gee, that's funny, I could read it perfectly fine in IE 5.2 on Mac OS 10.3. Wonder why that might be. Oh, yes, I turned off CSS in the browser.

Normally I wouldn't post a reply to something like this, but the whole shitty, breakable design that is so much of the web is in large part due to supporting pathetically old and broken browsers and proprietary extensions. NS 4 anyone?

Mac IE 5.2 did way better than previous Mac browsers with CSS but it is by no means some sort of quality benchmark. ON TOP OF WHICH, you could easily write CSS that does something to make a site look better, but is still simple enough for Mac IE 5.2. It's rather ridiculous to take a broken browser and say "look, I know it's borked but look, it doesn't render this site correctly". What makes this even better, is that the site is entirely usable because thankfully MS did include the ability to disable style sheets (or use your own) in Mac IE 5.2.

There's no reason not to use CSS unless it means that someone who would otherwise have been writing documentation is now writing CSS. I believe it more than likely, however, that there are people who would be willing to work on the CSS but who would otherwise not be involved in the project.