Site Design
- Thread starter Pixel
- Start date
Cthulhu
Administrator
- AKA
- Yop
Might be something that could be looked into, usually it's the underlying OS that determines font rendering. But I know nothing about that. Might ask our CSS dude about it.
Pixel
The Pixie King
Check out the way the social media icons fade and stuff on this SE site. Thought it was interesting.
http://www.jp.square-enix.com/secretteasersite2016/
There are 3 dots really annoying me at the bottom of the banner. I'll make a new version to replace it.
http://www.jp.square-enix.com/secretteasersite2016/
There are 3 dots really annoying me at the bottom of the banner. I'll make a new version to replace it.
Flintlock
Pro Adventurer
These ones?
(There are other social media icons on that page but they don't fade.)
They do look decent, but I think we need the colour in our implementation. I tested out the opacity but didn't much like it. I did up the transition from 0.2s to 0.4s though.
I started work on category/tag pages today but didn't finish them.
I'd quite like to do away with the "image rotation on hover" thing and replace it with some other effect, but what do other people think?
(There are other social media icons on that page but they don't fade.)
They do look decent, but I think we need the colour in our implementation. I tested out the opacity but didn't much like it. I did up the transition from 0.2s to 0.4s though.
I started work on category/tag pages today but didn't finish them.
I'd quite like to do away with the "image rotation on hover" thing and replace it with some other effect, but what do other people think?
Obsidian Fire
Ahk Morn!
- AKA
- The Engineer
You might just try a simple "zoom in on hover" and see where that leaves you. That effect is used a lot more across the web then an "image rotate on hover" so it doesn't feel so distracting when I see it happen.
Flintlock
Pro Adventurer
The image rotation has now been replaced by a zoom in. It was at 10% before but I brought it down to 7% because I think it looks better (also, it's seven). One problem is that the images, particularly the smallest ones, look blurry after the zoom. That can be overcome by making Wordpress generate the 107% images and then displaying them at the smaller size by default, but implementing it will involve lots of fiddly changes, so I haven't done it yet.
The slider is gone, replaced with a static (except for the zoom) image, because it was too resource-heavy. Firefox uses a lot less CPU when resizing now.
I also played around with the menu bar a bit. The search function was being hidden at widths below 1210px before, which I didn't agree with, so I stopped that from happening. That created its own problem of the search icon overlapping the menu, so I fixed that too. The problem that I'm yet to fix is the menu spilling down to a second row at certain sizes, but I'll do that when I next have a moment to work on the site, which could be later tonight, but right now I'm popping out.
The slider is gone, replaced with a static (except for the zoom) image, because it was too resource-heavy. Firefox uses a lot less CPU when resizing now.
I also played around with the menu bar a bit. The search function was being hidden at widths below 1210px before, which I didn't agree with, so I stopped that from happening. That created its own problem of the search icon overlapping the menu, so I fixed that too. The problem that I'm yet to fix is the menu spilling down to a second row at certain sizes, but I'll do that when I next have a moment to work on the site, which could be later tonight, but right now I'm popping out.
Flintlock
Pro Adventurer
I just realised that the social network image transition effects aren't actually working on Firefox. Firefox just doesn't support background-image transitions yet. In fact, it seems like it's only Webkit-based browsers that do. We might have to use Javascript. Oh, how I dream of a day when all browsers display things in the same exact standard-defined way. (Never gonna happen, I know.)
I've been working on various things for the past few hours; mostly small changes to make things consistent, so I won't list them all here. I'm gradually getting pissed off at our choice of base theme, Fraction. Not because it looks bad, but because it's not particularly well-written. There's a fair amount of inline styling and liberal use of the !important tag, which forces me to use it as well to override things (it should be used as little as possible). Nothing seems to be consistent: two identical buttons on two different pages will have different hover animations, for example. It doesn't come with an archive page template at all. And there are typos all over the place.
Work continues...
I've been working on various things for the past few hours; mostly small changes to make things consistent, so I won't list them all here. I'm gradually getting pissed off at our choice of base theme, Fraction. Not because it looks bad, but because it's not particularly well-written. There's a fair amount of inline styling and liberal use of the !important tag, which forces me to use it as well to override things (it should be used as little as possible). Nothing seems to be consistent: two identical buttons on two different pages will have different hover animations, for example. It doesn't come with an archive page template at all. And there are typos all over the place.
Work continues...
Flintlock
Pro Adventurer
It's not a web standard; background-image is not an "animatable property" in the CSS3 spec. Chrome, Opera and Safari just do it anyway, and as a Chrome user, I didn't realise that until today. 
I'd like to find a better solution and I'm sure there is one. Maybe this.
Edit: yep, that did the trick.
I'd like to find a better solution and I'm sure there is one. Maybe this.Edit: yep, that did the trick.
Last edited:
Channy
Bad Habit
- AKA
- Ruby Rose, Lucy
Lex
Administrator
I understand that Firefox Stans still exist, I used to be one. I made the transition to Chrome in like... 2010 or something. I don't even remember now, I've been using Chrome for many many years. But I did use Firefox for a long time before that. It was innovative once upon a time. It's a shame about what's happened to it over the last five years or so.
