From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f49.google.com (mail-wm0-f49.google.com [74.125.82.49]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2948595DA for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:48:27 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wm0-f49.google.com with SMTP id p63so26486090wmp.1 for ; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:48:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=6wind-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization:user-agent :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding :content-type; bh=1krw72EAA4dfj3gPFpcKyrEHMW3XI+0oMHdmQCnE5y0=; b=WQfwNx1DOLUur7+PJEODA/u4h6KLq/W2PVNICg7fOY1P2ZoxmNLZYcnnP5iZrntK5v XfUArkyEzQyyPB+bE+wwf0IPpWTViFnLKiMjgReUtg1fbeHdswy4+yPWGbvAAOQjs7aJ Sb+c4RGhRu2WriiorCfmX+9SphcEWG5YykKgAOnvdcdQQSk9Jr5dV6JPPpb019XLI7No sxsf1hV3G61Lm2NNzOVEr7uSmkf2ldqSn9SmBOlC10AKeIiIS9q96v1ChSHfotYdUq9N UvKSkMkmhsspW7fhyB2WwEav0e63C6QJfp+S7uXgOGauQKxU2bEguIcoHWiUC4JNpUIZ 3RDA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:organization :user-agent:in-reply-to:references:mime-version :content-transfer-encoding:content-type; bh=1krw72EAA4dfj3gPFpcKyrEHMW3XI+0oMHdmQCnE5y0=; b=VCPYXo7GkRMu2cGfF912mGgba9e0Ec4EjA2B9Ex3AP5A3FXOzxhuzQGCZVk9cMB+P1 wT+sCU57Fkd+t0E20yTmhXP7mWJSsXvXd8XM6Kty/CTCs1eLIoE3NLWfwVFz9ym42K9B AxRcOLhciOId6GZtbj/kwRyTgVeBHG16U3ZMe1AE3q91wTLlCjs8S1Uzx0l2JCERhnXt SSc7IC2H8X1/bb/bOVtQ49XT6wpcDJwkZu8xoT9z0/RbzDk870AQw7xiXsgX2jUDZcux ypVzhkkaqHPPZL5NR7H6ruTJ591mWAlmEJkVY6pUfq6v3gTb6MZb82RNkAkb/0lTdrLn AbTg== X-Gm-Message-State: AG10YOQV7EKNuGduepQ9XBdPwOy8poODCIJz7KFoTtGQ8/jCVMydu4nAlZWDAb7Y2qMhd+wG X-Received: by 10.28.48.137 with SMTP id w131mr3871602wmw.73.1455292106920; Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:48:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from xps13.localnet (136-92-190-109.dsl.ovh.fr. [109.190.92.136]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v78sm2883300wmv.23.2016.02.12.07.48.25 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 12 Feb 2016 07:48:26 -0800 (PST) From: Thomas Monjalon To: Harry van Haaren Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:46:56 +0100 Message-ID: <1573206.yIbr0ftlUT@xps13> Organization: 6WIND User-Agent: KMail/4.14.10 (Linux/4.1.6-1-ARCH; KDE/4.14.11; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: <1453987488-22546-1-git-send-email-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> References: <1453987488-22546-1-git-send-email-harry.van.haaren@intel.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: web@dpdk.org Subject: Re: [dpdk-web] [PATCH] update css colours and shadows X-BeenThere: web@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: website maintenance List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 12 Feb 2016 15:48:27 -0000 Hi Harry, I agree the colours of the website may be improved :) See my comments below, thanks. 2016-01-28 13:24, Harry van Haaren: > Change colours and shadows to align with DPDK logo, > rounded corners reduced, fade times shortend. Colours debate... ;) > section a { > - color: #942; > + color: #2980b9; I find it difficult to read. May we keep a kind of red as the one in the logo? > header h1 { > - margin: 0 auto 0.5em; > + margin: 0 auto 1em; I'm OK to give more space between the logo and the content, > padding: 0; > + padding-top: 0.5em; but not above the logo (which is just a waste IMHO). > header nav { > - box-shadow: 0 0 0.7em black; Why removing the shadow for the menu? I think it must be applied to the whole block (menu + content). Or is it to avoid the blur effect and be in line with the net logo? The more I look at it, the more I think it is acceptable. It gives the impression of a light really coming from the top. > - border-radius: 0.5em 0.5em 0 0; > - background-color: #333; > + border-radius: 0.4em 0.4em 0 0; > + background-color: #00233b; Yes good idea this color for the menu! The smaller radius is less old-school? > header nav ul { > @@ -40,35 +40,32 @@ header nav li a { > padding: 0.8em 1.5em; > font: normal 1em/1 'exo2',sans-serif; > color: #ccc; > - -webkit-transition: background-color .3s linear; > - -moz-transition: background-color .3s linear; > - -o-transition: background-color .3s linear; > - transition: background-color .3s linear; > + -webkit-transition: background-color .1s linear; > + -moz-transition: background-color .1s linear; > + -o-transition: background-color .1s linear; > + transition: background-color .1s linear; > } OK to be more reactive. > header nav li a#current { > - color: #eee; > - background-color: #544; > - box-shadow: inset 0 -1em 1em #333; I really like this small light effect. Why removing? The flat trend? > + color: #fff; The idea was to keep extra-white for the hover effect. However I'm OK with this change. > + background-color: #782a90; Yes this purple is nice. (maybe less pinky?) > } > header nav li a#current:hover, > header nav li a:hover { > color: #fff; > - background-color: #844; > - box-shadow: inset 0 -1em 2em #533; > - -webkit-transition: background-color .2s linear; > - -moz-transition: background-color .2s linear; > - -o-transition: background-color .2s linear; > - transition: background-color .2s linear; > + background-color: #9b2490; But I don't like this hover color. What about something like #728 ? > section { > clear: both; > background-color: #fff; > - border-radius: 0 0 0.5em 0.5em; I think it's better to keep rounded corners at the bottom like above. > - box-shadow: 0 0 0.7em black; > + box-shadow: 0 0 1em black; Why more shadow?