the colors of Parabola's website

AuroraBorealis - 12 months ago -

What do you think about further "parabola-ifying" the website, and adding more violet/purple colors instead of blue ones? I believe it would look much greater with its elements complying with Parabola's official colors.

Replies (18)

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - bill-auger - 12 months ago -

ive done several things over the years to make the various parabola websites more uniform in appearance - both redmine and mediawiki can be themed un-intrusively - if anyone wants to do it, patches that improve the LAF without sacrificing UX would be gladly accepted

this is the only important color (parabola logo):

normal (logo):
  HSV: 234.1 29.8 67.1
  RGB: 47 49 67
  hex: 787DAB

the other custom colors used across the parabola websites, are all value scaled per the logo:

medium (nav-bar background):
  HSV: 234.1 29.8 33.5
  RGB: 23 24 33
  hex: 3C3E55

bright (forum text):
  HSV: 234.1 29.8 90.0
  RGB: 63 66 90
  hex: B0B5E6

dark (forum background):
  HSV: 234.1 29.8 25.0
  RGB: 17 18 25
  hex: 2d2f40

the scale factors in that second set were chosen by eye, and presented only as examples - if contrast is ever a problem, any other proportional scaling of the base color would be fine

this is the git repo for the mediawiki sources:

# note specifically the theming files in: skins/ArchLinux/
$ git clone @

this is the git repo for the redmine sources:

# note specifically the theming files in: public/themes/parabola/
# the bug tracker landing page HTML is in: app/views/hooks/parabola/
# the forum could have its own landing page; but no one has made one yet
$ git clone @ -b parabola@

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - AuroraBorealis - 12 months ago -

And also, shouldn't text colors be violet instead of light blue? How stylish would that look (:

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - freemor - 12 months ago -

Please, please. Lets work for text colouring that meets accessability standards instead of what is "cool"
Far too many websites for for low contrast, bad colour combinations that are near to impossible
for people with vision limitations to read. High contrast, legible font, is what is required.

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - freemor - 12 months ago -

It in not jost about the font colour. but the combination of FG and BG. Birght
violet on white would probably be hideous for people with limited vision.

The W3C has a largish section of accessibility guidelines, and covers topics
like this in some detail.

I have worked with people with these problems, and have seen them totally
unable to see a link in an e-mail because of how it was coloured. Or be
completely unable to read a page becuse the webmaster had gone all cool and
modern looking

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - AuroraBorealis - 12 months ago -

what W3C says in "Accessibility Requirements for People with Low Vision":

For some people, common color combinations or colors from a limited color palette work fine, for example, black text on white background or the inverse with white text on black background. Other people need to select more specific background and text colors. For example, people who need low brightness overall, need to select the specific background and text colors that provide sufficient contrast for them yet not too high brightness. Readable and optimal color combinations differs vastly among individuals and can even vary for one individual depending on conditions such as fatigue and lighting.

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - bill-auger - 12 months ago -

the choice of colors were not arbitrary - the are all scaled per the base color of the logo - ive added to the post above to make that clear

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - freemor - 12 months ago -

Re: W3C

I seem to recall there being more then that (or lonks to more then that) that
dug into the technical issue of how to calculate the contrast between 2 colours
and the preferred contrast levels.

Anyways I'm not trying to be the style police. But having worked with members
of that population I'm vary aware of how much a simple thing like that can
cripple a persons ability to use/enjoy a site.

I know its "boring" but I've not seen anyone have an issue with black on white
with a resonable font.

Just trying to keep the needs of the few (but rapidly increasing with an aging
population) in the mix.

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - AuroraBorealis - 12 months ago -

bill-auger wrote:

the choice of colors were not arbitrary - the are all scaled per the base color of the logo - ive added to the post above to make that clear

I figured it out, I was talking about out of place looking blue colors

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - AuroraBorealis - 11 months ago -

Then Parabola should have a site version fully adjusted to the needs of people with impaired vision? Like this, what do you think -

site1.png (72.5 KB) site1.png

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - AuroraBorealis - 11 months ago -

Because, again, I'm not interested in dramatically changing the site's look, I only don't like the fact that the fonts have exactly the same color as the Arch site's fonts. And due to this, Parabola's site resembles a half-baked Arch site color-wise. I just think Parabola deserves better.

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - freemor - 11 months ago -

I actually like that, it looks rather like my usualy workflow.

The only minor issue would ne the "latest news" tag. But that's getting towards nit picky
so it's not important.

I'm not sure how other would feel about that. But I like it. But then I mostly
use the site via w3m so wouldn't seee it much anyways. :)

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - bill-auger - 11 months ago -

AuroraBorealis -

which parts of the websites do you suppose is not
accessibility-friendly ?

all of the parabola web services (arch, redmine, mediawiki,
cgit) are very close or identical to the upstreams - if there are
any accessibility issues, it would be best to get them reported
and fixed upstream

about the resemblance to arch, that was done intentionally, not
due to laziness, but because the parabola mission statement says
we should be as close to arch as possible, within the FSDG, to
be as familiar as possible for those migrating from one
arch-derivative to another - like freemor was expressing, i
think people appreciate the familiar interface and the web
routes from the website of one arch derivative to another and
expect to find the same things easily, whether it is archlinux,
archlinux32, archlinuxarm, or parabola - e.g.

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - Anonymous - 11 months ago -

bill-auger wrote:

which parts of the websites do you suppose is not
accessibility-friendly ?

CAPTCHA. Remove it with self‐registrations.

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - koszko - 11 months ago -

Weird. I don't remember having to solve this memory puzzle when creating my account like 2 weeks ago. It's the coolest captcha I've ever seen, though. It seems fair, given the visitors still have the option of asking for account creation via irc. It is not accessibility-friendly, but is not mandatory either. Btw, considering this week's spam on the forum, unguarded registrations seem dangerous :/

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - bill-auger - 11 months ago -

yea, thats no coincidence

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - AuroraBorealis - 5 months ago -

My question is basic and focused. Let me repeat it: I asked why Parabola site fonts' colors are exactly the same as Arch's. I BELIEVE it's out of sheer laziness and the lack of interest on the part of Parabola's devs. You're trying to talk about something that's totally beside the point of the simple question. Excuse me, but using exactly the same font colors in many places has nothing to do with convenience, will you find moving from one (already very similar) website to another inconvenient because of a.. slightly different color scheme? This is just absurd, and a double insult - to Parabola's independence and individuality, and to Arch users' intellectual level IMO. It's not a resemblance to Arch, it's exactly the same style. What's the point of having a distinct project name then, why not call it LibreArch and use the same colors everywhere, if you supposedly care about poor Arch toddlers so much and want to protect them from color shock?

I was NOT talking about "the familiar interface and the web routes", don't blur my question - I'm perfectly OK with them, I talk about a particular detail, Parabola's font colors. Your explanation "that's what we intended" is lame as far as we accept 1) the fact that free OS users (Arch users! - not the easiest OS around) are intelligent enough not to get baffled/turned away by slightly different font colors (I suspect that all adult people are intelligent enough), and 2) that Parabola is a separate project with its own unique visual style that ought to be maintained on its own official website.

Speaking of visually impaired people (like myself, by the way), I found no convincing indication whatsoever that the bright light-blue-violet color is somehow less visible (or more "hideous") than the bright light-blue color.
(And speaking of "do it yourself", I can't do anything of this kind because I'm an idiot technology-wise and can't even install an OS on my own. Does it mean I can't express harsh criticisms here? Or will I be labelled as "bike-shedder" or whatever)

RE: the colors of Parabola's website - bill-auger - 5 months ago -

all forms of bike-shedding are totally appropriate - another point of parabola's mission statement is that, it is made by and for the users of the system - if a significant number of parabola users want something to change, and it does not conflict with the FSDG, then it will most likely come to be so - i think that it has always been assumed, that parabola users want the arch-web website to resemble the arch website - this is not the first time that someone has suggested otherwise though - a year or so ago, someone suggested a fancy new "modern web" landing page, and offered to make it - to that, i suggested that we also make a similarly eye-popping page for downloads - fact is though, that person never made any web pages for parabola; so the parabola "home" and "downlaods" pages have not changed - there was absolutely no politics involved in that - its just the matter of the available resources, determining the potential of what could happen

being a small dev team, its just a matter of priorities for us - i could make those fancy web pages myself; but it is simply not the optimal use of my time and skill-set - and being community-driven, a lot of what happens to parabola is from users contributing changes - that is very different from: "no, do it yourself - i dont want to" - if you do not have the skills yourself, that should not seen as any barrier nor excuse - you could find someone who is good at making web pages, and ask them to present a proposal or some mock-ups to us - if you are only considering some minor changes of colors, not a complete make-over; thats even easier - just offer some concrete examples of exactly what elements that you would like to see differently - the general "parabola-fying" was done to a large extent a few years ago

as for parabola's independence, that would be very nice; but it is not actually the case today - parabola still depends heavily on arch for its routine maintenance - if the arch project disbanded today, the workload for parabola would increase by about 400% - it would be great to become fully self-sufficient someday - that has been discussed many times; but its just not the reality yet

even if parabola were totally independent, "LibreArch" would actually be a perfectly apt name; because it indicates most precisely the essential goal of the distro - the main reason why the distro could not be named "LibreArch", is because the FSDG does not permit distros to present themselves as being related to the non-free upstream

from the inception, the intention was to retain the arch experience as much as possible, within the FSDG; and not to deviate in incompatible ways, such as manjaro and hyperbola have - individualism would be something of an anti-goal technically; but the concerns raised in this thread are not technical at all, but purely aesthetic - if people want changes to web services, that does not interfere with the goals of the distro in any way - it would actually be serving one of the goals, namely: that the users decide how the distro serves their interests, within the mission statement - even changing the mission statement is among the things that the community could influence; but it is presumed that technical compatibility with arch and accordance with the FSDG will remain among those interests