[sf-lug] SF-LUG draft web page changes

Sun Mar 1 11:28:29 PST 2026

Yeah, the more I think about it ... and I'm certainly not an
HTML page designer or such (most of my HTML formatting
knowledge is ancient - not my field of expertise), I think there
should be better way(s) of doing it.

I wonder if we may have bias too, from many of the SF-LUG
(at least more active/vocal) folks.  E.g. lots of ~40+ age eyeballs
not so much wanting/liking or being able to as well/easily
use rather/quite small text on, e.g. high resolution small
mobile device (current-ish "smart phone"), whereas, say the
<~=30 aged may be more like "bring it on!" and want lots of text
on those small/tiny screens, so they can, e.g. read the entire page
of the novel of a book on one single phone screen without even
needing to scroll.  And likewise may not matter much at all for
larger screens (e.g traditional computer/laptop displays/monitor,
at least that aren't too horribly vintage ... I'm thinking mostly less
than ~20 year old laptop/computer displays/monitors - at least in
most cases).

And also to consider in the mix, not so trivial to implement (though
CSS or the like can make that much easier to bring in more-or-less
anywhere on given web site), can have web pages that at least within
reason, automagically scale according to the device screen - e.g. depending
on both pixel WxH, and even also DPI.  I recall even decades ago
an example of a company then on rather the forefront of that was
The New York Times - things would very automagically scale pretty dang
well depending upon what the client was using to view.  So yeah,
giant good/high resolution on desktop/laptop, might want to be able to see
digital representation of half of or entire equivalent of full print
newspaper page across that ... but down to quite small phone screen
size ... no ... down to maybe more like just a column or two and well
scrollable/navegable.  So, such things definitely are very possible and doable,
just needs someone to do the relevant HTML/CSS to do things like
that.  And, not the expert, but I'd guestimate those can also be
well adjusted by user preferences on the viewing device too,
e.g. perhaps those preferences varying by screen size.  E.g.,
someone with the age <25 eyeballs may not only prefer much smaller
font on screens both tiny and huge, but may want that more consistently
so.  Whereas say someone with age >80 eyeballs may want both
bit bigger, but more enlargement on the much smaller screen, and not
as much enlargement on the much larger screen.

Anyway, I'm sure there must be some best practices on how to go
about much or all of that.  Alas, not my area of expertise - and especially
on how to implement.  And as for defaults on such, sure, might make
sense to adjust that a bit based on user demographics - e.g. may want
quite different defaults for a senior care facility, than for high
school students.
And for more average-ish adults, may quite want something between
for the defaults.  In any case, should still also be quite user settable
easily too (notably as function of browser or the like), as various folks
will have different preferences/needs (e.g. some may be rather to
quite low vision, others may have exceptionally good and unflawed vision).

So, yeah, i don't think just tossing a font bump for the whole page is
optimal, though it may be at least moderate bit better than doing
exactly nothing - at least for that site and usage demographics
by the humans, average/median I think rather towards the older
eyeballs there.

On Sun, Mar 1, 2026 at 9:00 AM <aaronco36 at sdf.org> wrote:
>
> One item to possibly consider adding, IMHO, is providing instructions to
> _reduce_ that larger font size for the admittedly few persons like myself
> who may find the default font size is a bit too much using the web
> browsers of choice.
>
> In at least the Firefox and Waterfox web browsers, one can effect this ad
> hoc edit by way of the consecutive menu selections View --> Zoom --> Zoom
> Out (shortcut as Ctrl - ).
> Two Ctrl - key-combo presses yield a _very_ acceptably readable 80percent
> reduction in that larger font size for this particular user.... but of
> course YMMV :-)
>
> -A
>
>
> > Today's Topics:
> >
> >    1. SF-LUG draft web page changes (Michael Paoli)
> >    2. Re: SF-LUG draft web page changes (Ron)
> >    3. Re: SF-LUG draft web page changes (Ken Shaffer)
> >    4. Re: SF-LUG draft web page changes (Michael Paoli)
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 1
> > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 19:43:16 -0800
> > From: Michael Paoli <michael.paoli at berkeley.edu>
> > To: SF-LUG <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
> > Subject: [sf-lug] SF-LUG draft web page changes
> > Message-ID:
> >       <CAPU_E+db3wqUtZZRU363yop-U48p-Frz1THEeQpTa=tYSu2=qg at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > Uhm, haven't seen/heard peep since 2026-01-10,
> > and there's been "next" draft, hanging out there since 2026-01-07 quite
> > unchanged:
> > https://www.sf-lug.org/index_beta.html
> > only change since then is I just updated the date on it for
> > next meeting, which per the earlier automatically updates on
> > https://www.sf-lug.org/
> > So, ... want to promote that index_beta.html version to the current
> > production
> > https://www.sf-lug.org/
> > or ???
> > Shouldn't really have a long term unchanging beta just hangin' out
> > there, so what say ye?
> > Or if folks can't be bothered to speak up (crickets), should I
> > programmatically create something that will break the 0/0 ties by
> > arbitrarily deciding and implementing, or not and scrapping the
> > proposed/staged changes?
> > And I just dropped
> > https://www.sf-lug.org/index_alpha.html
> > As it's likewise been doing nothing for well over a month (was just a
> > copy of index_beta.html to draft/stage/promote next set of changes).
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 2
> > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 20:08:10 -0800
> > From: Ron <ron at bclug.ca>
> > To: sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> > Subject: Re: [sf-lug] SF-LUG draft web page changes
> > Message-ID: <afcd0cb9-4d49-44bc-b84c-25ae4d47ed77 at bclug.ca>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> >
> > Michael Paoli wrote on 2026-02-28 19:43:
> >
> >> Uhm, haven't seen/heard peep since 2026-01-10,
> >> and there's been "next" draft, hanging out there since 2026-01-07 quite
> >> unchanged:
> >> https://www.sf-lug.org/index_beta.html
> >
> > I find the beta version much easier to read, with the larger font size.
> >
> >
> > The IPv6 and IPv4 specific links - they could (IMHO) go away: there are
> > tools to reach the site using either protocol specifically, and usually
> > it does not matter which one a browser users.
> >
> >
> > On the other hand, they are kinda neat to test one's connectivity if one
> > happens to have IPv6 at home and wants to test it.
> >
> >
> > So, keep 'em, I say. (Flip. Flop.)
> >
> >
> > Looks good to me.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 3
> > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 21:44:36 -0800
> > From: Ken Shaffer <kenshaffer80 at gmail.com>
> > Cc: SF-LUG <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
> > Subject: Re: [sf-lug] SF-LUG draft web page changes
> > Message-ID:
> >       <CAAMNwFGnaCvnfavGQPPdJEYY2mD=FXEEs-DySTgHKz8krfrB0Q at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> >
> > The beta font size is fine on an external monitor at 100% -- no need to
> > use
> > 120% zoom.
> > On a phone in landscape, OK, no zoom needed. Phone in portrait, still way
> > too small.
> > Result on the devices I use, the beta is preferable to the old site. YMMV
> > Ken
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 7:44?PM Michael Paoli <michael.paoli at berkeley.edu>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Uhm, haven't seen/heard peep since 2026-01-10,
> >> and there's been "next" draft, hanging out there since 2026-01-07 quite
> >> unchanged:
> >> https://www.sf-lug.org/index_beta.html
> >> only change since then is I just updated the date on it for
> >> next meeting, which per the earlier automatically updates on
> >> https://www.sf-lug.org/
> >> So, ... want to promote that index_beta.html version to the current
> >> production
> >> https://www.sf-lug.org/
> >> or ???
> >> Shouldn't really have a long term unchanging beta just hangin' out
> >> there, so what say ye?
> >> Or if folks can't be bothered to speak up (crickets), should I
> >> programmatically create something that will break the 0/0 ties by
> >> arbitrarily deciding and implementing, or not and scrapping the
> >> proposed/staged changes?
> >> And I just dropped
> >> https://www.sf-lug.org/index_alpha.html
> >> As it's likewise been doing nothing for well over a month (was just a
> >> copy of index_beta.html to draft/stage/promote next set of changes).
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> sf-lug mailing list
> >> sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> >> http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> >> SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
> >>
> > -------------- next part --------------
> > An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> > URL:
> > <http://linuxmafia.com/pipermail/sf-lug/attachments/20260228/d3304ce2/attachment-0001.html>
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Message: 4
> > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2026 21:51:36 -0800
> > From: Michael Paoli <michael.paoli at berkeley.edu>
> > To: SF-LUG <sf-lug at linuxmafia.com>
> > Subject: Re: [sf-lug] SF-LUG draft web page changes
> > Message-ID:
> >       <CAPU_E+c0KA13Do9b7g905-0jf1t60W7p7apCt3q7E5FfAdkFhg at mail.gmail.com>
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 28, 2026 at 8:08?PM Ron <ron at bclug.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> Michael Paoli wrote on 2026-02-28 19:43:
> >>
> >> > Uhm, haven't seen/heard peep since 2026-01-10,
> >> > and there's been "next" draft, hanging out there since 2026-01-07
> >> quite
> >> > unchanged:
> >> > https://www.sf-lug.org/index_beta.html
> >>
> >> I find the beta version much easier to read, with the larger font size.
> >
> > Well, with all the votes tallied up for well over 30 days,
> > 100% in favor, so implemented.
> >
> > Version control under RCS, in both meanings of the word,
> > so yeah, that includes under
> > https://www.sf-lug.org/RCS/
> > and
> > file:///var/www/www.sf-lug.org/RCS/
> > if anyone needs/wants to review history of
> > (at least some of) earlier versions (and now also
> > including current for index.html).
> > see also: rcs(1), ci(1), co(1)
> >
> >> The IPv6 and IPv4 specific links - they could (IMHO) go away: there are
> >> tools to reach the site using either protocol specifically, and usually
> >> it does not matter which one a browser users.
> >>
> >> On the other hand, they are kinda neat to test one's connectivity if one
> >> happens to have IPv6 at home and wants to test it.
> >>
> >>
> >> So, keep 'em, I say. (Flip. Flop.)
> >> Looks good to me.
> > I'm kind'a inclined to keep 'em .. at least somewhere
> > on the page, but now, and especially with the larger text,
> > kind'a inclined to possibly further shrink - or more notably tighten
> > up the liks, reduce the text/empahsis, maybe/probably not have as
> > a separate section separated out by horizontal rules, etc.  Minor, but
> > yeah, I'm inclined to keep ... but further tighten up and deemphasize 'em.
> > Also is sometimes quite handy to have / know of separate links for such,
> > e.g. when one wants to check from a client where one may not to pick
> > specifically v4 or v6 - e.g. browser on "smart" phone.  And yeah,
> > there are tools 'n such, but most require JavaScript or the like, so may
> > not be so reliable and/or have dependencies.
> >
> > Though with the larger text ... that's just that one page,
> > nothing else so defaults on that same web server domain.
> > Of course not much else there, so maybe not much of an issue.
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > sf-lug mailing list
> > sf-lug at linuxmafia.com
> > http://linuxmafia.com/mailman/listinfo/sf-lug
> > SF-LUG is at http://www.sf-lug.org/
> >
> > End of sf-lug Digest, Vol 1489, Issue 1
> > ***************************************
> >
>
>