"Martin J. Dürst"
duerst at it.aoyama.ac.jp
Sun Jul 29 22:38:20 PDT 2012
On 2012/07/28 6:35, Joe Hildebrand (jhildebr) wrote:
> Martin Rex said:
>> After taking a look at the visual terrifying disaster here:
It's definitely better than the typewriter-style stuff that we have now.
And using strong language doesn't really help. Suggestions for
improvement would help a lot more.
>> I'm convinced that using HTML for a submission format would be an
>> extremely bad idea.
> I'm sorry that my lack of visual design skills have made it difficult for you to understand the main point, which is that the look and feel is intended to be separate from the underlying semantic. I welcome pull requests to:
I'm not sure github-like collaboration is known to lead to good results
for typographical design (but I haven't heard of any counterexamples,
I'd personally suggest to try the following:
- Switch to a font with light serifs for hopefully better text readability.
- Make the section numbers the same color as the section headings.
That's what people are used to. Making them gray makes them stick out,
not fade in the back (as I guess you intended).
- Use a bit more margin left and right (ideally in %, not fixed)
- Maybe very slightly increase leading for the main text (but this
depends on the font)
- Definitely use more leading for the references, and remove the bullet
points (labels such as [RFC2119] are the main visual cue, and the bullet
- In the address, the order Name-Organization-Email-Address looks rather
inconsistent. Either put the email at the end, or just after the name
(maybe even on the same line?)
> Unless you're arguing that good typography and design is impossible in HTML?
> Also, I assumed you were going to read on a terminal using a text browser. How are my choice of fonts and colors relevant to you in that experience?
More information about the rfc-interest