A new render of newxml

Bill's LFS Login lfsbill at nospam.dot
Tue May 4 04:45:47 PDT 2004

On Sun, 2 May 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:

> Bruce Dubbs said the following on 02-05-2004 17:39:
> > Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> >
> >>> El Sáb 01 May 2004 13:44, Jeroen Coumans escribió:
> >>>
> >>>> Thus, I propose to eliminate the top navigational links (ul
> >>>> class="headerlinks")
> >
> > The usability/convenience for graphics users here is the big issue.  If
> > you look at all the LDP pages, they all have links at the top.
> That's stupid. People read from top to bottom. The most logical place

What is stupid is throwing around pejorative terms because because your
view of something doesn't fit with another's. Especially when the
opposing view represents a longstanding policy that was developed by
some reasonably intelligent and thoughtful folks that have been serving
the community for a long time. A more reasonable approach might indicate
that they thought of something, or had information, you haven't.

The "gurus" on this list grow increasingly smug and intolerable with time.

> for navigational links is thus at the bottom. What are their reasons for
> placing them at the top?

For one, not everybody reads top-to-bottom every time. Plus, even if one
is reading for the first (or umpteenth) time, it is not uncommon to go
back near the top to re-read some section. Faster navigation.

If you serve your users, rather than yourself, that *may* be a factor.

> > What is the number of people that use text broswers compared to the
> > number of graphics browser users?
> I have no idea, although I'm sure someone can find out with the Apache
> access.log for lfs/view/{stable,cvs,test}

All of which is irrelevant. Some, like me, download CVS and use both
text and HTML display processes, depending on what I'm doing.


NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Bill Maltby
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list