Re: Website revamp?

[TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com>]

Good to hear from you!
 
Eric S Fraga <e.fraga@ucl.ac.uk> writes: 
 
> I do like the animated images in the features page!

Glad you like them! I recently converted the static images to SVGs 
with the help of someone using Emacs27 w/ Cairo, would be nice go 
do something like an animated SVG in the future, but that's for 
(much) later :P

>I do wonder about 
> the order of the topics within that page, e.g. working with 
> source code, although powerful, is probably not the lead item 
> for new users.  However, that's a minor point at this stage. 

Thanks for this feedback. I prioritised the source code blocks 
because:
 a) my impression is that to Comp/Data Sci people, they are one of 
 /the/ most 
    compelling features of Org-mode 
 b) they're similar to elements people are familiar with (Jupyter 
    notebooks, R markdown), so the Comp/Data Sci segment of our 
    audience is already roughy familiar with part of their 
    capabilities 
 
I shifted the agenda/capture/clocking/etc. features down because
 a) they semantically seem like they should go together b) having 
 them near the top pushes down too many other features too much, 
 IMO

Absolutely worth considering the order, please share any further 
thoughts you may have :)
 
> More generally, can the column width for the text be a function 
> of the window width and have images scaled so that they are not 
> wider than the text column?  It should be possible to have 
> mobile friendly without making the columns too narrow for full 
> desktop use.  The fact that the images are much wider than the 
> text makes the page look ugly, in my opinion. 

The column width already is. I just find long lines undesirable. 
50-80 characters is the standard in publishing for a reason.

To quote from /The Elements of Typographic Style/,
> Anything from 45 to 75 characters is widely regarded as a 
> satisfactory line length of line for a single-column page set in 
> a serifed text face in a text size. The 66-character line 
> (counting both letters and spaces) is widely regarded as ideal. 
> For multiple-column work, a better average is 40 to 50 
> characters. If the type is well set and printed, lines of 85 or 
> 90 characters will pose no problem in discontinuous texts, such 
> as bibliographies, or, with generous leading, in footnotes. But 
> even with generous leading, a line that averages more than 75 or 
> So characters is likely to be too long for continuous reading. 

There's more to be said about line spacing and the reasons for 
this - if I recall correctly /A practical guide to typography/ 
(available online) goes over this.

I look forward to hearing any further comments you may have!

Timothy.