Slashdot Mirror
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?"
How about some CSS for Slashdot? Seriously.
Obviously content is the most important thing, but what possible reason could there be for not improving the presentation as well? Unless it somehow cuts into the time needed to prepare content (which is certainly shouldn't), it only makes sense to make things pretty.
I fully support the idea. It's not a matter of "getting involved in the presentation layer," as opposed to the content. That's, after all, the whole point of CSS... To separate these concepts, and make them independently manageable.
It would be simple for a team to develop CSS files in concert with those who are already doing a great job developing consistent, predictable content. This project lends itself easily to improvements with CSS.
I'd only recommend that multiple CSS files be created, and people be allowed to choose one that suits them, or none at all.
This would be a little Linux predation a la MSFT to force more users into using Open Office, right?
lol
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
The best examples online are still probably this and this and even and slashdot style
Note that all those pages had the exact same html. Only the css changed. In their site (read the page) they have styles for all sorts of displays including wireless friendly ones.
There's nothing wrong with making the pages more visually appealing, just don't overdo it.
I suppose if you provided a standard stylesheet that every document used, and each document author only had to worry about content and didn't have to bother with how it would look (since that's all handled with one good stylesheet forced on everybody), then it could work. Just don't, for the love of god, force each author to come up with their own stylesheet for everything. There should just be one standard one, and that should do it for everybody.
I think you should create several different style sheets and give users the ability to choose which style they like the best or turn it off altogether.
Unless they can make even easier to use, it seems like a waste of time to me. I could change the look of things on my end if I really needed to.
I definitely think this CSS should be used as a formatting technique for the Linux documentation project. Since you can also apply to CSS to XML documents, why not just do that instead. Use the CSS to make it look pretty, and create separate style sheets for a GUI browser, and a text based, or allow a user to use their own (I have never seen this though).
:).
I guess the real advantage is that you can easily parse the XML and "port" the documentation to something else as well be it PostScript, PDF, or some other format that toggles your switch. In essence you're really solving 2 problems (if you consider for a moment there are 2 problems):
1) you make it look nicely formatted and pretty
2) the content is separated from the presentation, so if you want to switch formats later, it should be easy to parse it through with XML, and then set it up for some other document format programmatically.
Just my two cents at least.
I can't spell ripburger
Well, I went to that link for the poll, and all I saw was what I presume to be CSS source code. Mozilla didn't render it at all.
This is why I'd vote against it. I need docs when things aren't working right, and when things aren't working right, I need something I can read with cat, less, and or vi.
Why one CSS? Allow user to pick which stylesheet they want to view all documents with (as in CSS Zen Garden). As long as each document has the proper tags, it would be easy to make them all appear consistent under a stylesheet. This would also make it easy for distros to distribute their own custom distro-themed stylesheets for the documentation.
It should be trivial to generate proper classes of tags from the source documents because LDP uses something similar to Docbook (or maybe they actually use Docbook now? They didn't quite last time I checked) so all the context information is already there.
Assuming they are using Apache then they could just use Apache::Sandwich to include the CSS tags.
Nick Powers
Encryption: I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend your right to encrypt it...
Only a geek would think these two are seperable.
--hsm
I agree. Gentoo's docs are good.
As a webmaster, I'd love to see more major sites embrace CSS sitewide. Getting browsers up to date on the standard is long overdue. If people start visiting CNN, for example, and having problems, they'll be more likely to update their browsers.
I'm still doing transitional, but the next iteration of my site will probably be in XHTML 1.0 strict -- if I can convince management to go that route.
Non compliant browsers be damned!
My Karma was at 49, then they switched to words. All that work for nothing!
Wait, these are examples of how powerful CSS can be. That sorta implies you need to use a non broken browser to view them properly. I totally agree that going bleeding edge for something important like documentation goes against the kiss principle, but you are making it sound like CSS is a bad thing. Really, the reason you can't view those pages correctly is you are using a browser that is known to render CSS poorly.
You won't believe it how many Linux/Unix users use Lynx and Links. So please, think of them.
I guess I'll bite...
CSS is designed to breakdown gracefully on browsers that don't support it. Also, the use of @import will keep 4.0 browsers that don't support CSS from trying to figure out wtf to do with all that CSS code. Really, you are a professional web developer and you don't know that CSS doesn't break/slow down browsers?
If bad puns were like deli meat, this would be the wurst
What I have found to work well is the use of a little css. You can use css to set font size and font family, and href attributes, but I still use tables for layout. I find they scale easier when dealing with internationalization and forms where you want label / input in columns. I try to avoid nexted tables. Doing this makes the pages still viewable in old browsers, or limited browsers, but also makes it a nicer experience in newer browsers. People still use lynx, and links and neither has support for css. They both kinds just strip it all down.
Only 'flamers' flame!
Does slashdot hate my posts?
Sure, use CSS! But if you're short of time/expertise, don't reinvent the wheel! Use the W3C Core Styles.
And if none of those style sheets quite tickles your fancy, you can use one as a base to modify.
equals all around goodness.
Seriously though, good presentation is paramount to any communication. In the case of the web, using CSS is a good way to present your information.
If you want your information to be read/seen/heard, present it well, target your audience. This being said, theres no point in making something look pretty if the content is non-existent. You have to have the substance or else you're wasting people's time
The only thing better than something that works well is something that works well and looks good. With CSS, if users don't like the way you've presented things at least they have the option of changing it to some degree.
CSS is the way to go. It makes it much easier to maintain pages, it means the document authors don't have to be the style managers, and it means less to download. With care CSS can be used to make pages that look very nice in a graphical browser and still function well in lynx.
Another advantage is the ability to have styles based on media. Display ads (if necessary) on the viewed pages but hide them on the printed (saves paper and ink/toner).
I use CSS so that I don't have a lot of formatting to get around when I want to update my web pages, or to make the programming easier.
<p align="center"><font size="4">My big centered paragraph</font></p> is amuch messier than <p class="parcent">My big centered paragraph</p>
Sig is on vacation
This community should have been using CSS for years. Supporting W3C standards is very important.
CSS will make LDP more readable, for the moment I have to modify my browser windo to get the columns of text to the correct width. I also have to modify font size.
Two operations that would be made redundant by a good CSS.
A print style sheet would make printed output easier to read too.
realkiwi
Using anything other than apache cocoon for this project is ridiculous.
Of course all the documents are/should be stored as DocBook, then the presentation layer can be handled automatically by cocoon. You could have a zillion options for output, for example:
It amazes me that people always assume that what is a "feature" for one person will always break something for another...
Well, I have one friend who spent time learning all he could about CSS to "handicap-enable" his web browser.
You see, he has difficulty seeing, so he needs the web browser to default to larger fonts, so here comes CSS, which modifies websites to be easily visible to him.
This is an example of a useful purpose to CSS that has nothing to do with "beautifying" a site.
The Penguin Producer