[17:16] newz2000: ping [17:16] hey LaserJock [17:16] newz2000: how do I get corrections on ubuntu.com/education? can I file a bug or go through you or ...? [17:17] if it's a 2m fix just send them to me here on IRC [17:17] Hmm. Just realized that Rich is gone now. I wonder what will happen to that. [17:17] yeah [17:17] that's my concern [17:18] http://www.ubuntu.com/education/management#licence is waaaaay wrong [17:18] "All Ubuntu software is released under GPL, which means it is effectively licence free as opposed to free licence. " [17:18] I'm pretty sure you guys don't want ubuntu.com saying that [17:20] Yeah, should be "... released under an open source licesnse which means it's is freely available to use and share." How's that sound? [17:20] great if you fix "license" :-) [17:21] right [17:21] the link to that section on ubuntu.com/education also says "License Free" [17:21] Yeah, I think that's meant in a different light [17:21] and the context explains it [17:21] k [17:24] newz2000: are you going to make a bug report for that page that LaserJock told you about or should I? [17:24] no, it's fixed [17:24] just submitted [17:25] it will take a min or two to show live though [17:25] Hmm. lost the bold, gonna put that back in. [17:26] ok thanks [17:27] althought it's still not *strictly* true because of Multiverse, but close enough I think [22:15] newz2000: question [22:15] hey boredandblogging [22:15] go for it [22:15] newz2000: question about your tweet [22:15] ubuntu.com based on 960 [22:15] is that 960px? [22:16] there's a css framework called 960 that, coincidentally is 960px wide [22:17] ooh interesting [22:18] The site will not really look much different except for that [22:18] is the 960px generally accepted width? [22:18] Yeah, I did some looking and it seems to be [22:19] I can paste in my findings, it's a few lines long but there's not that many people here... [22:19] yeah, that would be great [22:19] here it comes [22:20] abort [22:20] copy and paste from moin stinks... reformatting [22:20] Life Hacker Fixed at 1000px wide [22:20] Apple Fixed at about 980px wide [22:20] RedHat Fixed at about 760px wide [22:20] Microsoft Fixed at about 945px wide [22:20] Novell Fixed at about 950px wide [22:20] Mozilla Fixed at about 930px wide [22:20] Ajaxian Fixed at about 940px wide [22:20] A List Apart Fixed at about 930px wide [22:20] Yahoo! Fixed at about 970px wide [22:21] Adobe Fixed at about 1000px wide (except rhs logo is not fixed) [22:21] 37 Signals Fixed at about 850px wide [22:21] that's what I have so far [22:21] I don't often see too many attractive sites that are not fixed-width but I'm collecting data on that too [22:22] very interesting [22:22] i didn't realized so many people used fixed width [22:23] yeah. Have you heard of "the deck" (an advertising network)? [22:23] yeah, they have a lot of big name sites [22:24] big name in web and design at least [22:24] right [22:24] I plan to next look through them to see which are fixed-width. Of the first few I looked at all are. [22:26] they have some real nice sites [22:27] but I will say ze frank's site drives me up the wall [22:28] ugh. Never been there. [22:28] I'd have thought that was a link spam site [22:29] he used to do a very good video podcast thing [22:38] boredandblogging: I'm not actually 100% sold on the 960 thing. I posted that specifically so I could get feedback. [22:39] newz2000, simplebits.com [22:40] knome: is that a 960 site? [22:40] newz2000, nope. [22:40] newz2000, it's a site of a fluid-width/flexible/bulletproof sites "father" [22:41] newz2000, at least he has written two books on the subject... [22:41] newz2000, still he has fixed. [22:41] fixed at 965 or so [22:41] i think it's something that's very tightly tied with the content you're going to present. [22:41] (being fixed or not) [22:42] The trend I'm seeing is that sites going for a visual presentation are often fixed. Sites that are filled with content are more likely fluid. [22:42] wikipedia and scads of blog sites are examples of fluid [22:43] true. [22:44] also with fluid width you can expect that somebody will see the site as not-so-appealing. [22:44] for example very big or very small resoutions [22:44] of course min- and max-width can stop that, but IE... [22:45] yeah, I'm not sure that min and max width fluid sites are worth the extra design effort [22:45] ubuntu.com (not the homepage) use that now [22:45] i think it's really important. [22:45] creating the graphics for the site is much much harder though. It makes the css and html far more complex [22:45] yeah, i know. [22:46] you don't want your site to be to wide [22:46] because then every content will look bad. [22:46] one paragraph per line for example [22:47] and if you've reserved and designed some amount of vertical space to be used by an element, that will be largely different with "normal" resolution and big resolution [22:47] I'm pretty much sold on fixed-width for ubuntu.com but I'm not yet sold on the actual width to use. [22:48] supposedly 1024 is the "standard minimum resolution" anyway [22:48] 1024 and 1280 width's account for most of the traffic to ubuntu.com [22:48] then just substract the width of scrollbars. [22:48] i usually go with 990 [22:48] google analytics however doesn't say what people's browse widths are. A lot of people like to have a sidebar open or two windows side-by-side. [22:49] true. [22:49] 770 is the absolute minimum i'm willing to with any site ususally [22:49] yeah, that's too narrow [22:50] lately I've been using about 850 or so [22:50] if there is no good rationale for supporting smaller screens [22:50] this 960 framework is getting a lot of buzz and maybe the future for the default drupal theme [22:51] there's no advantage for 850 over 900+, because there is no "normal" resolutions betwwen [22:51] the only issue is padding in the sides of the actual content [22:51] and maybe 50 px can be "reserved" for the browser window being smaller [22:51] or max. to 100px [22:51] my thought process was that if a user has only 800px wide they'd be able to center the screen to cut off the padding and see the content without scrolling [22:52] so that about 900 anyway [22:52] mmh. [22:52] but then you have to make sure you *have* that 50+px padding [22:52] true [22:52] I'm not sure that's even worth it though [22:53] i think not. [22:53] if I use 960 which has a content area of 940 and 240px of that is navigation [22:53] then an 800px wide user could see the content area just fine [22:53] if javascript is an option, see this: http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2006/01/19/ [22:54] Ah yes, I've seen that. I'm actually working on a theme like that for my own blog. [22:54] yep. [22:54] that is worth thinking [22:54] because then you could even support 640x480 [22:54] it's a lot of extra work but for ubuntu.com i think it might just be worth it. [22:55] for this iteration of ubuntu.com we won't do that but when we redesign later this year we may. [22:55] yeah. [22:55] This is only a very minor change in order to get us onto drupal 6 and to fix some problems that have been bugging me for the last two years. [22:56] i see