Unfork bootstrap CSS file

[ashawley]

The current bootstrap CSS version is 2.3.0

Fork is essentially 08bab9f, but also d985737

I spent some time experimenting, and it seemed that bootstrap.css wasn't entirely forked, but that the non-responsive CSS files was used. I've switched to the copy provided by MaxCDN for 2.3.0 in the hopes it can switch to that (see below).

Changing the bootstrap CSS file, required small subsequent style changes. For instance, I converted span12 to span10 on the frontpage. I also changed the width of the main page column on other pages. I hope they're close enough to the spirit of the original.

The bootstrap JS is 2.2.1. It could probably be 2.3.0, as well. But I'll hold off so we can identify any regressions with these CSS changes.

With the fork resolved, the motivation here is that

1. minification could be used,
2. bootstrap could be moved to the last version 2 release, 2.3.2,
3. a CDN of the published bootstrap version could be used instead

See #554 for a PR that uses a CDN for the bootstrap JS file.

[jarrodu]

I like the idea here. It may not be ready though. I think the new bootstrap version maybe causing the site to be even less responsive.

Do you mind playing around with various screen sizes on your end? I am mostly worried about people on smartphones.

[ashawley]

Thanks for reviewing this. Don't know how I forgot to look at it in other devices.

To be clear, I'm trying to use an official bootstrap version, the same one, not a newer one.

I've reverted the change to the download and API buttons. This fixes it on phones, but changes the look on the desktop.

Reverting the change I made to the spiral's position will also work on other devices. However, unlike the download and API buttons, the spiral will just not be where it should on the desktop. I feel like positioning the spiral logo on the site in a responsive way is difficult. It's like throwing darts at a dartboard. I'm not good at playing darts.

[jarrodu]

I also spend most of my time on the backend so I don't have a good idea about positioning the logo.

I checked again using e41bbe5 and seems like the smaller widths have a problem. I am using Chrome developer tools.

1220px width

1100px width

Maybe we can address this when we do a complete overhaul of the site? What do you think is best?

[adamvoss]

Maybe we can address this when we do a complete overhaul of the site?

@jarrodwb Is there anything tracking this. This was perhaps alluded to in #372 as well.

[ashawley]

Hey Jarrod, thanks for investigating it.

If the bootstrap CSS file can't be re-aligned with the released version, I guess I was going to try and investigate converting the site to a newer version of bootstrap. Hopefully, newer versions would behave more sanely for both mobile and desktop layouts.

[heathermiller]

Hey @ashawley, thanks a lot for looking at this and trying to take it on. So far I think no one has actually succeeded in making the frontpage truly mobile-friendly, even in the forks. The trouble is the download/API buttons and the Scala swirl. This is outside of Bootstrap, if I remember correctly. So I'm actually not sure that updating Bootstrap will solve the problems that @jarrodwb pointed out :-/

[SethTisue]

so I guess that means we should go ahead and merge, since there are problems on mobile regardless, but being on a newer bootstrap is a good thing...?

[jarrodu]

Please don't merge. The problem with the logo is introduced on desktops which was not present before. Unless this is fixed I don't see a net benefit from merging.

Cheers. Heading to bed but will be available on Monday for a more detailed discussion if anyone desires it.

[SethTisue]

ok, thanks for the heads up :-)

[ashawley]

Indeed, hold off on this given the rendering issues.