[racket] Best way to propose changes to Scribble CSS files

* `Margin' notes way too prominent and disruptive.

Neil Van Dyke wrote at 11/20/2013 05:55 PM:
> Comments on documentation based on looking at 
> "http://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/snapshots/current/doc/reference/strings.html"... 
>
>
> * Overall, a big improvement.
>
> * I don't like the zooming text size for these manuals, especially not 
> when it's larger than user's preferred body text size in browser. 
>  People's program editors and other Web documents don't do that, and 
> it takes people's eyes a while to adjust when going between different 
> text sizes.  @margin-note{A long time ago, as some know, right after 
> Mosaic, `Web designers' immediately disregarded some of the original 
> intent and guidance of HTML, and started trying to specify all text in 
> pixels or points, regardless of the size/resolution/clarity of the 
> display and the vision and position of the user.  (Then designers 
> tried to do Web pages as GIFs, then as PDFs, then as Flash, before we 
> beat it out of them.)  Recently, more than a decade later, Web 
> designers are finally starting to backpedal on HTML, only calling it a 
> new thing, ``responsive design,'' like it's something new that only 
> they were insightful and stylishly-dressed enough to invent, not what 
> engineers were telling them from very the beginning.  The preferred 
> body text size and some other basics of device independence have been 
> there from the start in HTML and Web browsers.}
>
> * Too much vertical spacing between entries in left-bar TOC. It's 
> noticeably big, and makes the difference between some TOCs fitting on 
> my screen and not fitting on my screen.
>
> * I'm trying to get used to the desaturated colors and pallete tweaks, 
> especially when it means that Racket identifiers in body text appear 
> to be the same color as various section links and "@hyperlink", as 
> well as "@tech" links.  I was accustomed to all three things looking 
> different, but now they're conflated.  With "tech" links, they 
> previously looked like body text except for a muted underline, so I 
> felt OK using them for an important technical terms that a reader of 
> this paragraph might well not know; now, paragraphs are full of lots 
> of indistinguishable cyan links, and the "tech" links are more 
> prominent than previously.  Similarly, with Racket identifiers, we 
> knew that Racket identifiers were generally links, so we didn't have 
> to color them as links, and the near-text-color was less disruptive to 
> reading flow.  I'm still missing identifiers and "tech" links looking 
> more like body text, and the rare *other* kind of links being the ones 
> we think are worth breaking flow and making more distinguished.
>
> * Not a big fan of the font for the chapter/section/etc. headings.  
> The font looks OK at lower sizes, but is not scaling well, and becomes 
> less readable (I'm referring to how scalable fonts don't necessarily 
> just use just an X-Y transform).  If it looked more like a non-bold 
> variant of the same license plate-ish font used for the title, that 
> might be better, although that font looks almost fixed-pitch.  The old 
> Helvetica, Arial, etc. implementations tend to scale better, and they 
> look OK but aren't as stylish.
>
> * Again, overall, a big improvement.
>
> Neil V.
>
> Matthew Butterick wrote at 11/20/2013 12:27 AM:
>> Asumu + Greg + others who find bugs in the new doc layout: I will 
>> look into anything posted on this thread or emailed to me directly 
>> (mb at mbtype.com). I've found a few nits as well.
>