New look for Arch website?

Mountainjew · 2010-05-26 11:28:57

So many armchair web designers here

I for one love it

Zeist · 2010-05-26 11:33:16

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it looks a little odd to me that the wiki page has a smaller logo and smaller font in the header.

karol · 2010-05-26 11:36:41

@Zeist
Are you sure you're not using some styles / zooming / other thing that might alter the fontsize? They look the same to me.

Allan · 2010-05-26 11:37:28

Zeist wrote:

I don't know if it is intentional or not, but it looks a little odd to me that the wiki page has a smaller logo and smaller font in the header.

No it does not... Part of the point of this was to use the same logo and css for all headers to make it more consistent.

karol · 2010-05-26 11:40:53

Firefox treats f.e. the homepage and the wiki as separate and so I can have small fonts here and bigger there if I wish - it remembers the zoom level even if you forgot you've set it :-)

louipc · 2010-05-26 13:08:09

toofishes wrote:

wonder wrote:
VoodooSteve wrote:
Is the rest of the site going to get the same look? (forums, wiki, etc)
yes.
I think each site should look completely different. Can one of them be red and black themed?

I was thinking of doing the AUR in a different colour scheme.

louipc · 2010-05-26 13:20:00

thayer wrote:

Regarding the background, it's definitely blue. The color is #eeeeff; equal parts red/green and a brighter concentration of blue. Purple (and it's variants) imply a higher concentration of both red and blue over green. That is not the case here.
Unfortunately, not all monitors are created equal; some do not show the full spectrum of any one particular colour. For whatever reason, the proper rendering of the red spectrum seems to be the trickiest hue for LCD/LED displays. If it appears purple on your screen it is simply a misconfiguration or limitation of your monitor.

Looks like lavender to me. I'm viewing via a CRT monitor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavender_%28color%29

B_Lizzard · 2010-05-26 13:20:33

Loving the new style! Great work, people.

I see that the wiki still uses a different font (or font size, anyways), and that the logo is of a different size too. Is this just me? If not, is this intentional?

Thank you for your hard work!

dcc24 · 2010-05-26 13:31:42

Seems like those who are using CRTs are seeing a purple (or similar) color whereas those on LCDs are seeing a light blue.

Looking on a laptop LCD, it looks like a light blue, but when I change the vertical viewing angle (e.g tilt the screen) it definitely becomes purple-ish.

karol · 2010-05-26 13:37:10

> Seems like those who are using CRTs are seeing a purple (or similar) color whereas those on LCDs are seeing a light blue.
Nope - I have LCD and it's pinkish. It's caused either by the site redesign or my slightly bloodshot eyes ;-)

I really like the compact header - with no adds we didn't need that space to the right of Arch logo.

tesjo · 2010-05-26 14:52:25

I can confirm CRT problem, I have dual monitor at work on single card (matrox g550) one crt one lcd , purple (lavender) on crt and correct on lcd (kind of funny when dragging across) . Screenshot changes also on the screen. please try to choose a different color, the purple is bad. Old colors were minor difference between the monitors (ie gray text blocks on forum more white on lcd)

Last edited by tesjo (2010-05-26 15:04:16)

dudko · 2010-05-26 15:34:52

Finally a hyperlink in logo.

I like that new style but I had to change background color to white.

Here is a simple gresemonkey script, which can do it.

Last edited by dudko (2010-05-26 15:35:11)

[vEX] · 2010-05-26 16:43:54

I for one preferred the old layout, the new one is a bit too blue for my taste.

hbekel · 2010-05-26 16:44:46

The problem with the background color is that it is a light lavender and not a "very light blue" when 6500k is being used as the display color temperature, which is implied for desktop publishing, see:

Color Temperature - Desktop Publishing

How else could Lavender (web color) be defined as #e6e6fa everywhere? Those who argue that #eeeeff is light blue because it has equal part of red and green would have to say that #e6e6fa must be a light blue as well. But since 6500k is "warm", both colors slightly shift into red, resulting in lavender.

See also Web Colors.

And although my crt is not calibrated with professional tools, it is calibrated well enough for my amateur uses, which includes that my photos (shot in sRGB) appear exactly the same on my screen as they appear in prints.

Since #eeeeff already is not websafe to begin with (#99ccff is the closest "web safe" color), I suggest #e2eeff, which takes out a bit of red and to me looks "very light blue" enough in any of 6500k, 7500k and 9300k on my crt:

Maybe this could be a compromise.

Last edited by hbekel (2010-05-26 16:49:06)

Bestiapeluda · 2010-05-26 16:46:55

Excellent!!

dudko · 2010-05-26 16:51:27

Bestiapeluda wrote:

Excellent!!

^+1

karol · 2010-05-26 16:52:17

Nice to see some informed opinion about painting the bike shed ;-)
Thx, hbekel.

flamelab · 2010-05-26 16:54:37

hbekel wrote:

The problem with the background color is that it is a light lavender and not a "very light blue" when 6500k is being used as the display color temperature, which is implied for desktop publishing, see:
Color Temperature - Desktop Publishing
How else could Lavender (web color) be defined as #e6e6fa everywhere? Those who argue that #eeeeff is light blue because it has equal part of red and green would have to say that #e6e6fa must be a light blue as well. But since 6500k is "warm", both colors slightly shift into red, resulting in lavender.
See also Web Colors.
And although my crt is not calibrated with professional tools, it is calibrated well enough for my amateur uses, which includes that my photos (shot in sRGB) appear exactly the same on my screen as they appear in prints.
Since #eeeeff already is not websafe to begin with (#99ccff is the closest "web safe" color), I suggest #e2eeff, which takes out a bit of red and to me looks "very light blue" enough in any of 6500k, 7500k and 9300k on my crt:
http://omploader.org/tNGYwMg
Maybe this could be a compromise.

But that's ^ tooooo blue-ish (on my LCD screen)

Marcel- · 2010-05-26 17:10:52

hbekel wrote:

Since #eeeeff already is not websafe to begin with (#99ccff is the closest "web safe" color)

Though I agree with most of your arguments, I have to make a little side note on this: I think we can safely assume that using web-safe colours is no longer a requirement these days.

Acecero · 2010-05-26 17:11:19

flamelab wrote:

But that's ^ tooooo blue-ish (on my LCD screen)

What do you mean by too blue-ish? Is it too dark of a blue? I guess having it a lighter shade, might make the font more readable.

Last edited by Acecero (2010-05-26 17:34:35)

hbekel · 2010-05-26 17:16:54

Marcel- wrote:

hbekel wrote:
Since #eeeeff already is not websafe to begin with (#99ccff is the closest "web safe" color)
Though I agree with most of your arguments, I have to make a little side note on this: I think we can safely assume that using web-safe colours is no longer a requirement these days.

Yes, I agree. I didn't mean to imply web safe colors should be used, I rather meant that since it's not using web safe colors anyway, it might as well go with #e2eeff.

hbekel · 2010-05-26 17:19:55

flamelab wrote:

hbekel wrote:
http://omploader.org/tNGYwMg
Maybe this could be a compromise.
But that's ^ tooooo blue-ish (on my LCD screen)

I could live with #e4eeff as well. My point is, let's try and take out a bit of red to avoid a red tint with 6500k.

dunc · 2010-05-26 17:28:25

Well, I like it.

The only criticism I'd make is that there could be a bit more whitespace around the margins and gutters. It looks a touch "busy" to me. Other than that, it's excellent. I always thought the logo was too big on the old one.

Julius2 · 2010-05-26 17:33:50

I have an LCD and I see a light blue, it works fine for me.

Nope - I have LCD and it's pinkish. It's caused either by the site redesign or my slightly bloodshot eyes ;-)

What make and model for the monitor? Maybe we can figure out if there are common links if someone with a similar monitor has the same problem.

dcc24 · 2010-05-26 17:51:03

After calibrating my LCD with Spyder 2 (a semi professional tool, see here) and loading the resulting color profiles, I can confirm that looking at the LCD with a non-tilted angle results in a blue tone. It is nowhere near "lavender" etc.

Arch Linux

#101 2010-05-26 11:28:57

Re: New look for Arch website?

#102 2010-05-26 11:33:16

Re: New look for Arch website?

#103 2010-05-26 11:36:41

Re: New look for Arch website?

#104 2010-05-26 11:37:28

Re: New look for Arch website?

#105 2010-05-26 11:40:53

Re: New look for Arch website?

#106 2010-05-26 13:08:09

Re: New look for Arch website?

#107 2010-05-26 13:20:00

Re: New look for Arch website?

#108 2010-05-26 13:20:33

Re: New look for Arch website?

#109 2010-05-26 13:31:42

Re: New look for Arch website?

#110 2010-05-26 13:37:10

Re: New look for Arch website?

#111 2010-05-26 14:52:25

Re: New look for Arch website?

#112 2010-05-26 15:34:52

Re: New look for Arch website?

#113 2010-05-26 16:43:54

Re: New look for Arch website?

#114 2010-05-26 16:44:46

Re: New look for Arch website?

#115 2010-05-26 16:46:55

Re: New look for Arch website?

#116 2010-05-26 16:51:27

Re: New look for Arch website?

#117 2010-05-26 16:52:17

Re: New look for Arch website?

#118 2010-05-26 16:54:37

Re: New look for Arch website?

#119 2010-05-26 17:10:52

Re: New look for Arch website?

#120 2010-05-26 17:11:19

Re: New look for Arch website?

#121 2010-05-26 17:16:54

Re: New look for Arch website?

#122 2010-05-26 17:19:55

Re: New look for Arch website?

#123 2010-05-26 17:28:25

Re: New look for Arch website?

#124 2010-05-26 17:33:50

Re: New look for Arch website?

#125 2010-05-26 17:51:03

Re: New look for Arch website?

Board footer