Hi
I am not sure.
But normally I will look at:
http://colorbrewer2.org/#type=sequential&scheme=BuGn&n=3
Hai
On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 8:28 PM, David Cerutti <dscerutti.gmail.com> wrote:
> Can you pick a browser-safe color that would work better? The peach is a
> tad brighter than I wanted but I'll see if I can pick another one to work
> with "Amber" themes. I was weighing whether to fade the image another
> notch as well.
> On Oct 3, 2016 7:45 PM, "Nhai" <nhai.qn.gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > I think the background color is very strong and not eye pleasing. The TOC
> > is very crowded too.
> >
> > Hai
> >
> > > On Oct 3, 2016, at 7:27 PM, David Cerutti <dscerutti.gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > How does it look now?
> > >
> > > http://casegroup.rutgers.edu/~cerutti/amber_web/tutorials/
> > >
> > > I have the masthead.jpg image rendered with layers in .xcf format (Gnu
> > > Image Manipulation Program), anticipating that we can make that our
> > banner
> > > with a bit of text-as-image. (I'd suggest "AMBER Molecular
> Simulations,"
> > > but I'm sure we'll have some exchanges about the exact words.)
> > >
> > > I've tried to nail things down pretty well but I haven't yet tested
> > across
> > > many browsers.
> > >
> > > Dave
> > >
> > >
> > >> On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 1:28 PM, David A Case <david.case.rutgers.edu>
> > wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> On Thu, Sep 29, 2016, Dave Cerutti wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> All right, thanks for the outpouring of support. I will explain
> > briefly
> > >>> some of what I had been trying to accomplish.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks for your careful looks at the tutorial web page. Some comments
> > are
> > >> interspersed below.
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> *- Single page format is too long.*
> > >>
> > >> I basically agree here.
> > >>
> > >> Can we get a visually attractive top-level ToC? The existing boxes
> and
> > >> ToC images are not perfect, but they do add visual interest and
> separate
> > >> one entry from the next one. Is there some analogue for a new ToC
> page?
> > >> And, let's try to keep the number of sub-ToC's as small as we can
> (that
> > >> still makes sense.)
> > >>
> > >>> There are also logistical considerations. If everything is on
> one
> > >>> page, that means that all 49 ToC images have to be transferred when
> the
> > >>> page loads. People look at this site on their mobile devices,....
> > >>
> > >> If some of the ToC graphics are too big, we should pare them down, in
> my
> > >> view.
> > >> A ToC graphic should be small. If there is a neat figure that
> > illustrates
> > >> something important, put it into the tutorial proper.
> > >>
> > >> Supporting mobile devices is a large-ish ask, and would probably
> involve
> > >> a major effort spanning the entire site. Let's see if we can fix the
> > >> tutorials first.
> > >>
> > >>> ....the fonts need to change. The Sans-Serif headings contrasting
> > >>> with the serif text is odd, but the italicized blue serif links do
> not
> > >> fare
> > >>> well on top of the textured grey background. This is a computational
> > >>> chemistry package, and we often express ideas in which commas and
> tick
> > >>> marks matter. They get lost against the textured background and they
> > can
> > >>> blend in with serif fonts, especially if italics are in play. People
> > who
> > >>> know the material may not see a problem, but they're also not the
> ones
> > >> who
> > >>> need to read the pages.
> > >>
> > >> OK: I hadn't realized the problem of the texture background
> interfering
> > >> with
> > >> seeing commas and tick-marks. I'd like to have a common background
> > image,
> > >> and
> > >> suggestions are welcome.
> > >>
> > >> Sans-serif headlines combined with serif text is not "odd": is is a
> very
> > >> common standard (see, e.g. the Manual, which uses the koma-script
> LateX
> > >> defaults.) But using better colors is fine, and even different fonts,
> > if
> > >> that
> > >> is what people want. However, I'd like to have a common "amber.css"
> > file,
> > >> rather than a "tutorial.css" file that is only used for part of the
> > site.
> > >>
> > >> Maybe the simplest thing is to create a git branch where suggested
> pages
> > >> could
> > >> go; those could then be easily merged into the master branch as people
> > >> agree
> > >> on what should be done.
> > >>
> > >> Thanks again to Dave for looking into this, and for continuing to
> pursue
> > >> it.
> > >>
> > >> ...dac
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> > >> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> > >> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > AMBER-Developers mailing list
> > > AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> > > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > AMBER-Developers mailing list
> > AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> > http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> AMBER-Developers mailing list
> AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
> http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
>
_______________________________________________
AMBER-Developers mailing list
AMBER-Developers.ambermd.org
http://lists.ambermd.org/mailman/listinfo/amber-developers
Received on Mon Oct 03 2016 - 18:30:03 PDT
