$ links https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/manual/html_mono/libc.html
Link: [start: Top]
Link: [index: Concept Index]
Link: [contents: Table of Contents]
Link: [up: (dir)]
The GNU C Library
Short Table of Contents
* [1 Introduction]
* [2 Error Reporting]
* [3 Virtual Memory Allocation And Paging]
* [4 Character Handling]
* [5 String and Array Utilities]
* [6 Character Set Handling]
* [7 Locales and Internationalization]
* [8 Message Translation]
* [9 Searching and Sorting]
* [10 Pattern Matching]
^C
$ links http://elmerland.com/gnu_manual.html
The GNU C Library
[About] [By: Elmer Landaverde]
If you haven't tried it yourself you're missing out. It's truly art.
Though I suppose I should ask why a command line user would not just use GNU info or another program to access the info files.
This is Windows 7, with the latest version of Chrome - the only difference from "normal" being the installation of ScriptSafe blocking JavaScript:
I might even suggest putting the sub-section navigation in the sidebar a la readthedocs.
An Expand All/Collapse All button would also be nice (but not instead of expanding by default-- the whole reason I'd be reading those documents is to read the stuff in the collapsed sections).
If I were to add a collapse/expand all button would you still prefer for all the sub-sections to be expanded by default?
What you've done is redesign the GNU C Library manual, HTML edition. Which you have done well, IMHO. It doesn't seem to involve refactoring C code.
Its still readable as "manual for a redesigned GNU C library" in addition to the presumably intended "redesigned manual for the GNU C library".
This is latest Chrome on iOS. That header banner is fixed (that's sub-optimal) and all the content is in that little box.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9238739
> A reader emailed to complain about how this and other HN discussions often become derailed by off-topic carping about blog design. I agree completely. Could there be a more classic form of bikeshedding? It would seem parodic if it weren't sadly real. This has become more of a thing on HN lately. It needs to become less of a thing.
> I don't mean to pick on you personally, or just on this one comment. (Your second sentence alone, by the way, would have been a helpful contribution.) The problem is the tedious stampedes such comments spawn.
This submission is a bit different because the design of the page is the thing being submitted, but I'm aware that I too easily make comments about the design of the page rather than the content of the page.
Some design choices are weird and prevent people from being able read the content and I wish there was a way to provide that feedback without derailing a thread.
I haven't inspected how you did it but I guess it shouldn't be hard to apply it to other GNU manuals also, as all are very similar in the sense that they all are produced using the same tools.
Another idea: local search function similar to Sphinx's would be really nice.
PS: I couldn't find the local search function that you mentioned. Can you put a link so that I can see how it works?
A big part of manuals is being able to read or scroll fluidly into the next or previous section - very often one doesn't know whether what they are looking for is mentioned in 1.3.1 or 1.3.2 - having to manually click each section is completely atrocious for usability. Not to mention you just broke search.
If you want a responsive design that's actually useful as opposed to counterproductive, leave the sidebar for navigation (down-scale it to 50% it's huge and distracting) and restore the document to a contiguous form. There is a reason manuals have been written the way they are for dozens of years, hip and flashy design elements might sell products - but they do not help with productivity.
This, it is often split in sections smaller than the screen so you have to uncollapse way to many items. Make the navigation jump to the right section in the document, maybe allow to collapse sections, but have it all visible by default.
You did not write either glibc or the manual. The original authors did not credit themselves, yet you've appropriated credit for what is essentially restyling the HTML output of texinfo into a less usable, unscrollable, unsearchable form.
If you insist on the huge attribution, change it to something accurate like "Style template by:"
