Hey, Kyle.
I've responded of your later emails in this one.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:32 PM, Kyle Nitzsche
<kyle.nitzsche@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is a matter of opinion, I think, not objective reality.
I'm not sure what you referring to here. Do you think that objects
which are placed in proximity to one another on the page are assumed
by the reader to be more closely related than objects placed farther
apart from one another? If so, then I would suggest that you agree
with the premise of my argument.
The toc design I just pushed is traditional and I think superior, despite
the argument below.
If I had to muster an argument, it would be as follows:
* a toc should be visually distinct from the rest as an aid to the user
finding it when scrolling (not confusing it with other textual content)
I would put forth that having a page of colored text with a large
'Contents' heading is sufficient visual aid. :)
* a good way to do that is the traditional way: a square layout with left
justified headings and right justified page numbers with leader dots
connecting them
The fully justified text would certainly contrast with the ragged
right text of the manual. I think that it contrasts so much that it
appears out of place and even a bit disruptive.
* the idea that the 'eye cannot leap' from the headings to the numbers
doesn't feel true to me, and page numbers don't matter much anyway in pdfs
(what matters is clicking on the heading and being taken where you want to
go - whoosh)
It's not that the eyes *can't* leap, it's that it's *more difficult*
for them to leap across. That's why the dot leaders exist: to give
the eye a line to follow as it travels across the page.
If the book is designed solely for on-screen reading (that is, it
won't be printed or published in a book form at all), then you'd be
better off dispensing with pages entirely. I'd recommend using HTML
or some other on-screen format instead of PDF.
* I found the old design visually unattractive on the page with its ragged
(non-justified) right wide page numbers. It just floated in empty space
amorphously.
Well, we can probably come up with some better ways to impose a more
clear structure to the table without resorting to banishing the folios
to the far side of the page. After we get some more content in the
repository, I can present some ideas.
On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 7:42 PM, Kyle Nitzsche
<kyle.nitzsche@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'd like to add that I also don't think the toc text should be red in color.
At least because this is a barrier for people who are color blind.
The color blindness argument doesn't fare well here because the reader
isn't being asked to differentiate the red text with text of another
color.
But also because it isn't consistent with the new ubuntu branding.
I do agree with this argument. I plan on looking at the Ubuntu brand
color specifications to see what we can use here. The considerations
are:
1. The link color needs to blend well with the body text (black).
2. It needs to contrast just enough for readers to realize it's a link.
3. The link color needs to look good on screen and in print (in color
and grayscale).
(Yes, I realize that 1 and 2 on somewhat conflicting—welcome to design!)
it would be great if we could take some steps to implement a book design
here that really feels like a clean implementation of the new Ubuntu look.
That's the plan. As I mentioned above, I'm waiting for more of the
content to appear before I work on the design too much. (I believe
that the design should be informed by and supportive of the content,
not the other way 'round.)
On a slightly different note: I'm quite happy for the help, if you're
interested in book design. But I would caution you against
adding/removing code if you're unsure as to what it does. (This is in
regard to your commit comment, 'removed from
ubuntu-developer-manual.cls stanzas having to do with table of
contents which seem to do nothing.') With LaTeX, there is also an
issue with packages conflicting with one another. It's not always
easy to sort it out.
One bug with regard to your tocloft work: The 'Contents' heading
appears in the wrong style (font) now.
--Kevin
