[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Bug#612442: marked as done (www.debian.org: limit maximum width of text)

Your message dated Fri, 20 Oct 2023 22:07:51 +0200
with message-id <25906.56855.426316.890150@cs.uni-koeln.de>
and subject line closing
has caused the Debian Bug report #612442,
regarding www.debian.org: limit maximum width of text
to be marked as done.

This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.

(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what this
message is talking about, this may indicate a serious mail system
misconfiguration somewhere. Please contact owner@bugs.debian.org
immediately.)


-- 
612442: https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=612442
Debian Bug Tracking System
Contact owner@bugs.debian.org with problems
--- Begin Message --- 
Package: www.debian.org
Version: n/a

The new site design, rolled out with the squeeze release, is quite
wonderful. I would like to propose, however, that the maximum width of
the text would be limited, for the sake of readability, to something
like 60em. If one has a very wide browser window for other reasons, it
would be nice if the Debian site would still be easily readable.

As an example of such other reasons, I sometimes need to have a very
large image open in one tab, and then switch to a different tab for
Debian content. I could work around this by having the Debian content
open in a separate window, rather than tab, or resize the window when
changing tabs, but it'd be more convenient for me, and I suspect other
readers, to have the Debian CSS to include something like this:

        body { max-width: 60em; }

(Possibly some other element than body would be a better fit.)

--- End Message ---
--- Begin Message --- 
We have do action on this since 10+ years. And noone lese complained
about this, so closing this bug.
-- 
regards Thomas

--- End Message ---
Reply to: