111–120 of 165 posts
Looks nice, but my first thought when I looked at the code example: 1 >>> l = ['spam', 'ham', 314, 23] was "wait, how are they assigning a list to the number 1? How is that possible? Oh... that's an l". (Not a fan of that. I'm half blind (figuratively) so these things confuse me.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the feedback, good stuff. BTW, please do try the nav on mobile devices, especially tablets. They work there, too, and I think our designers did something especially slick :)
Here are some annotated screenshots of the design on my mobile devices: https://docs.google.com/folder/d/0B2Fy-Q78JeVpV3UyOGpnSVZ0UV... (The higher-rez ones are from Chrome running on my Galaxy Note; the lower-rez ones are from the stock browser on a Galaxy Ace)
Looks nice. My feedback for what it's worth: - The home page is very "blue". Personally I think this page will look better if the blue gradient in the background was a light gray gradient instead. - Search icon needs to be lowered. - Hovering the secondary menu is not a pleasant experience. I think this is mainly because of the white info panel in the drop down switch from right to left. It makes it look cluttered an…
I had similar thoughts about the white part of the drop-down menu changing sides.
FWIW, I think it's a really significant improvement over the current homepage, which always feels like a list of mostly-irrelevant news links to me. This one has a code snippet which is a great idea (though I hope the content of the snippet improves!), and big links to downloads and docs.
Could the prompt on the home page be made to be interactive? (CodeAcademy style?) Seems a great way to get people to jump in straight away… and no better way to learn than by doing.
Has some nice aspects, but that secondary nav is horrible in almost every way.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Really? I've always found Python's documentation (especially the official tutorial) to be excellent. What do you think could be improved about it?
The documentation is beautifully written and perfect for learning, but it doesn't support the quick-fire referencing I, and I presume the other detractors, have grown to expect. Contrast the first Google result for "python dictionary" [1] and "java hashmap" [2]. The Python result tells you about every data structure and does so in a story, the Java one gives you what you want and little more. [1] : http://docs.python…
Overall, I think you're right that the Python docs aren't optimal for quick fire referencing. I think we tend to use some form of introspection to examine methods, function signatures and docstrings. For instance, I keep IPython open and use tab completion and the 'foo?' syntax to find the details I need.
It would probably not be as "beautiful" compared to Non-serif fonts but it would certainl help my eyes (and I'm sure for others as well - especially if we spend hours in front of a computer screen).
I really hate saying this because I know it must have taken a lot of work to get to this stage... but it looks very 2005. Fewer gradients and shadows and try to slim down the menus and columns. I know the current site isn't exactly a beauty, but I liked how it had a Wikipedia-like gravitas. This design looks too young for the audience.
Has some nice aspects, but that secondary nav is horrible in almost every way.
I'm not in any way related to this effort, but if you're going to give criticism, please at least make it constructive or give examples of what you mean. I certainly didn't find it horrible "in almost every way".