What repository is this for? You didn't specify it in the review.

Which repository is this patch foor?

@aacid this is for the git repo of the capacity framework

The capacity repository is not in Phabricator (and neither is any other website repo, apparently). KDE has not yet "switched to Phabricator", only a few projects and repositories are available.

I assume patches should still be sent via Reviewboard for now,

I don't think it's a good idea changing these values here directly in css.php since will affect all other sites using the "newlayout" layout of capacity.

As far as i can see it there's we have two options:

• We can create a "newnewlayout" in capacity if we're planing to move more sites from "newlayout" to "newnewlayout"
• We can just make this changes in css.inc of l10n web if this changes are only for this particular "newlayout" user

I'd prefer if the new file was called css_newlayout2.php instead of css_new.php

I have the feeling the left bar grows a bit too much http://i.imgur.com/dZWHUeQ.png

Can that be limited? Or is that good and it's just me that have not much idea about "what looks nice" :D

@aacid What did you think about http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ ?

I'm just putting the same style. I can reduce and so on, but I would need more precise directions... If you think the current online version is better, it can stay like it is.

In D1011#19513, @ochurlaud wrote:

@aacid What did you think about http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ ?
I'm just putting the same style. I can reduce and so on, but I would need more precise directions... If you think the current online version is better, it can stay like it is.

The thing is that page was already very wide before (or so says http://web.archive.org/web/20150905161257/http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ )

Anyway as said i'm not the one that has the better visual taste so i may be just wrong.

Did anyone suggest you to do this change or you did it on your own? If someone suggested it maybe you can point them to my screenshot and the current code so they can see if they like it more?

In D1011#19514, @aacid wrote:

In D1011#19513, @ochurlaud wrote:

@aacid What did you think about http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ ?
I'm just putting the same style. I can reduce and so on, but I would need more precise directions... If you think the current online version is better, it can stay like it is.

The thing is that page was already very wide before (or so says http://web.archive.org/web/20150905161257/http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ )

Anyway as said i'm not the one that has the better visual taste so i may be just wrong.

Did anyone suggest you to do this change or you did it on your own? If someone suggested it maybe you can point them to my screenshot and the current code so they can see if they like it more?

Sorry for the harsh answer.. I picked the task myself because it seems to me that it doesn't look good. I changed the code, and I'm not really sure what direction I should go. Thanks for reviewing: I'll try to think about the size (my screen is only 14''. so on a bigger one it might not render as well as for me). I'll come back here when I have new ideas.

It was a hard day. Time to sleep for me.

In D1011#19515, @ochurlaud wrote:

In D1011#19514, @aacid wrote:

In D1011#19513, @ochurlaud wrote:

@aacid What did you think about http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ ?
I'm just putting the same style. I can reduce and so on, but I would need more precise directions... If you think the current online version is better, it can stay like it is.

The thing is that page was already very wide before (or so says http://web.archive.org/web/20150905161257/http://api.kde.org/frameworks-api/frameworks5-apidocs/ )

Anyway as said i'm not the one that has the better visual taste so i may be just wrong.

Did anyone suggest you to do this change or you did it on your own? If someone suggested it maybe you can point them to my screenshot and the current code so they can see if they like it more?

Sorry for the harsh answer.. I picked the task myself

When you say you picked the task you mean you said "this looks ugly, let's make it look nicer" and not "i went into a list someone made of web pages and picked one from there", right?

because it seems to me that it doesn't look good. I changed the code, and I'm not really sure what direction I should go. Thanks for reviewing: I'll try to think about the size (my screen is only 14''. so on a bigger one it might not render as well as for me). I'll come back here when I have new ideas.

As said i have not the most of the visual/design skills, my input is not the best, you may want to seek some opinions in https://forum.kde.org/viewforum.php?f=285

In D1011#19663, @aacid wrote:

When you say you picked the task you mean you said "this looks ugly, let's make it look nicer" and not "i went into a list someone made of web pages and picked one from there", right?

I was using a lot api.kde.org, found it ugly, so worked on this. Then I took in order the websites having the same style to progressively unify all theses websites.

I'll check the forum post. Thank you for all your advice.

New topic here:
https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=285&t=131263

I already sent a mail on the mailinglist last week: no answer yet.

I have added some inline comments. not sure how that works....

the latest addition didn't seem to have made it into the diff.
But with that i guess this qualifies as a valid addition to the repo. There is no functional change on capacity anyway, just a new theme, which needs to be switched to in the site's config.

In D1011#21424, @imalchow wrote:

the latest addition didn't seem to have made it into the diff.
But with that i guess this qualifies as a valid addition to the repo. There is no functional change on capacity anyway, just a new theme, which needs to be switched to in the site's config.

Sure, but the idea here is that someone has to agree this looks better than the other layout, otherwise what's the point of adding it.

I just can't be the judge if it looks better or not since i'm not very expert on that side.

In D1011#21615, @aacid wrote:

In D1011#21424, @imalchow wrote:

the latest addition didn't seem to have made it into the diff.
But with that i guess this qualifies as a valid addition to the repo. There is no functional change on capacity anyway, just a new theme, which needs to be switched to in the site's config.

Sure, but the idea here is that someone has to agree this looks better than the other layout, otherwise what's the point of adding it.

I just can't be the judge if it looks better or not since i'm not very expert on that side.

Ken (who deals with the kde.org website) and neverendigo already told me it was better with my modifications. I push it on the website, and then wait for @ltoscano to accept the update for the l10n website.

pushed: http://commits.kde.org/websites/capacity/0f2aa756b3e5117d858d5ec1f9f69925fd659cd8