[17:16] <LaserJock> newz2000: ping
[17:16] <newz2000> hey LaserJock
[17:16] <LaserJock> newz2000: how do I get corrections on ubuntu.com/education? can I file a bug or go through you or ...?
[17:17] <newz2000> if it's a 2m fix just send them to me here on IRC
[17:17] <newz2000> Hmm. Just realized that Rich is gone now. I wonder what will happen to that.
[17:17] <LaserJock> yeah
[17:17] <LaserJock> that's my concern
[17:18] <LaserJock> http://www.ubuntu.com/education/management#licence is waaaaay wrong
[17:18] <LaserJock> "All Ubuntu software is released under GPL, which means it is effectively licence free as opposed to free licence. "
[17:18] <LaserJock> I'm pretty sure you guys don't want ubuntu.com saying that
[17:20] <newz2000> 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] <LaserJock> great if you fix "license" :-)
[17:21] <newz2000> right
[17:21] <LaserJock> the link to that section on ubuntu.com/education also says "License Free"
[17:21] <newz2000> Yeah, I think that's meant in a different light
[17:21] <newz2000> and the context explains it
[17:21] <LaserJock> k
[17:24] <highvoltage> newz2000: are you going to make a bug report for that page that LaserJock told you about or should I?
[17:24] <newz2000> no, it's fixed
[17:24] <newz2000> just submitted
[17:25] <newz2000> it will take a min or two to show live though
[17:25] <newz2000> Hmm. lost the bold, gonna put that back in.
[17:26] <highvoltage> ok thanks
[17:27] <LaserJock> althought it's still not *strictly* true because of Multiverse, but close enough I think
[22:15] <boredandblogging> newz2000: question
[22:15] <newz2000> hey boredandblogging
[22:15] <newz2000> go for it
[22:15] <boredandblogging> newz2000: question about your tweet
[22:15] <boredandblogging> ubuntu.com based on 960
[22:15] <boredandblogging> is that 960px?
[22:16] <newz2000> there's a css framework called 960 that, coincidentally is 960px wide
[22:17] <boredandblogging> ooh interesting
[22:18] <newz2000> The site will not really look much different except for that
[22:18] <boredandblogging> is the 960px generally accepted width?
[22:18] <newz2000> Yeah, I did some looking and it seems to be
[22:19] <newz2000> I can paste in my findings, it's a few lines long but there's not that many people here...
[22:19] <boredandblogging> yeah, that would be great
[22:19] <newz2000> here it comes
[22:20] <newz2000> abort
[22:20] <newz2000> copy and paste from moin stinks... reformatting
[22:20] <newz2000>       Life Hacker Fixed at 1000px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       Apple Fixed at about 980px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       RedHat Fixed at about 760px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       Microsoft Fixed at about 945px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       Novell Fixed at about 950px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       Mozilla Fixed at about 930px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       Ajaxian Fixed at about 940px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       A List Apart Fixed at about 930px wide
[22:20] <newz2000>       Yahoo! Fixed at about 970px wide
[22:21] <newz2000>       Adobe Fixed at about 1000px wide (except rhs logo is not fixed)
[22:21] <newz2000>       37 Signals Fixed at about 850px wide
[22:21] <newz2000> that's what I have so far
[22:21] <newz2000> I don't often see too many attractive sites that are not fixed-width but I'm collecting data on that too
[22:22] <boredandblogging> very interesting
[22:22] <boredandblogging> i didn't realized so many people used fixed width
[22:23] <newz2000> yeah. Have you heard of "the deck" (an advertising network)?
[22:23] <boredandblogging> yeah, they have a lot of big name sites
[22:24] <newz2000> big name in web and design at least
[22:24] <boredandblogging> right
[22:24] <newz2000> I plan to next look through them to see which are fixed-width. Of the first few I looked at all are.
[22:26] <boredandblogging> they have some real nice sites
[22:27] <boredandblogging> but I will say ze frank's site drives me up the wall
[22:28] <newz2000> ugh. Never been there.
[22:28] <newz2000> I'd have thought that was a link spam site
[22:29] <boredandblogging> he used to do a very good video podcast thing
[22:38] <newz2000> boredandblogging: I'm not actually 100% sold on the 960 thing. I posted that specifically so I could get feedback.
[22:39] <knome> newz2000, simplebits.com
[22:40] <newz2000> knome: is that a 960 site?
[22:40] <knome> newz2000, nope.
[22:40] <knome> newz2000, it's a site of a fluid-width/flexible/bulletproof sites "father"
[22:41] <knome> newz2000, at least he has written two books on the subject...
[22:41] <knome> newz2000, still he has fixed.
[22:41] <newz2000> fixed at 965 or so
[22:41] <knome> i think it's something that's very tightly tied with the content you're going to present.
[22:41] <knome> (being fixed or not)
[22:42] <newz2000> 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] <newz2000> wikipedia and scads of blog sites are examples of fluid
[22:43] <knome> true.
[22:44] <knome> also with fluid width you can expect that somebody will see the site as not-so-appealing.
[22:44] <knome> for example very big or very small resoutions
[22:44] <knome> of course min- and max-width can stop that, but IE...
[22:45] <newz2000> yeah, I'm not sure that min and max width fluid sites are worth the extra design effort
[22:45] <newz2000> ubuntu.com (not the homepage) use that now
[22:45] <knome> i think it's really important.
[22:45] <newz2000> creating the graphics for the site is much much harder though. It makes the css and html far more complex
[22:45] <knome> yeah, i know.
[22:46] <knome> you don't want your site to be to wide
[22:46] <knome> because then every content will look bad.
[22:46] <knome> one paragraph per line for example
[22:47] <knome> 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] <newz2000> 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] <knome> supposedly 1024 is the "standard minimum resolution" anyway
[22:48] <newz2000> 1024 and 1280 width's account for most of the traffic to ubuntu.com
[22:48] <knome> then just substract the width of scrollbars.
[22:48] <knome> i usually go with 990
[22:48] <newz2000> 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] <knome> true.
[22:49] <knome> 770 is the absolute minimum i'm willing to with any site ususally
[22:49] <newz2000> yeah, that's too narrow
[22:50] <newz2000> lately I've been using about 850 or so
[22:50] <knome> if there is no good rationale for supporting smaller screens
[22:50] <newz2000> this 960 framework is getting a lot of buzz and maybe the future for the default drupal theme
[22:51] <knome> there's no advantage for 850 over 900+, because there is no "normal" resolutions betwwen
[22:51] <knome> the only issue is padding in the sides of the actual content
[22:51] <knome> and maybe 50 px can be "reserved" for the browser window being smaller
[22:51] <knome> or max. to 100px
[22:51] <newz2000> 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] <knome> so that about 900 anyway
[22:52] <knome> mmh.
[22:52] <knome> but then you have to make sure you *have* that 50+px padding
[22:52] <newz2000> true
[22:52] <newz2000> I'm not sure that's even worth it though
[22:53] <knome> i think not.
[22:53] <newz2000> if I use 960 which has a content area of 940 and 240px of that is navigation
[22:53] <newz2000> then an 800px wide user could see the content area just fine
[22:53] <knome> if javascript is an option, see this: http://www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2006/01/19/
[22:54] <newz2000> Ah yes, I've seen that. I'm actually working on a theme like that for my own blog.
[22:54] <knome> yep.
[22:54] <knome> that is worth thinking
[22:54] <knome> because then you could even support 640x480
[22:54] <knome> it's a lot of extra work but for ubuntu.com i think it might just be worth it.
[22:55] <newz2000> for this iteration of ubuntu.com we won't do that but when we redesign later this year we may.
[22:55] <knome> yeah.
[22:55] <newz2000> 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] <knome> i see