RawPedia feedback

New look! Probably a WIP but I instantly found the info density and persistent bar at the top awful. There are a few other issues present in this screenshot. Anyway, looking forward to the final product.

It is much better on mobile than it was, however.

1 Like

One immediate thumbs up: the text is more readable. I needed my glasses for the old RawPedia unless I cranked up the text size.

One immediate negative: I had to search for the Eek! page. That’s sacrilege. Based on many posts by new users, the existence of this page should be immediately visible upon visiting RawPedia.


Looks nice! Visually I find it very pleasant.

One immediate thing I noticed was that the font size is bigger than the other sites and the rendering seems a little rough, especially for the code snippets.

I also don’t really like the fact that the menu from left does not stay in sight, so if I am reading a longer page I need to scroll up all the way to move to some other page.

Here is a screenshot to better show what I mean :slight_smile:

@afre: I feel that starting a thread this way may sound a bit hard. A bit of constructive criticism is always welcomed:

  • what do you mean with info density
  • why do you see the top bar awful, and most important, how do you think it may be improved?
  • the wrong justification of the greeting text is caused by the precise resolution you’re using. It will be fixed soon

That link never was included in the main page. Maybe @Morgan_Hardwood will include it?

Could you elaborate, please? Is it the font used, the size, the margins?

Are you talking about other documentation pages? If they are related to the page you’re reading, most probably there will be links within the text. If not so closely related, just click the Rawpedia logo in the top bar to go to the main page.

The links on the left side are mostly pointing to special pages, so I can’t see where’s the problem

The look of the site could be improved, but you may need to be a bit more specific :blush:

1 Like

I have added a screenshot showing what I mean. It is on a Windows 10 with a default Google Chrome installation. What I meant is:

  • the fonts do not look as good as the ones from pixls.us (maybe no Antialiasing is done on them?!?)
  • the fonts used in the code snippets are bigger and bolder than the ones from the article.
1 Like

You are right about this. The main link above can be used. It is just that sometimes is harder to reach than a link on the left side or a ‘Jump at the beginning’ link bellow.
I am not suggesting to change anything, it is just one thing that bothered me while looking at the Windows compiling instructions page that I had bookmarked :slight_smile:

1 Like

Here’s my feedback:

  • the look is more polished
  • overall the font looks 1 or 2 points too big on a 24 inch FullHD display (it’s bigger than the font used here on pixls.us),
  • the top of the page is a bit too important : the screenshot image takes almost 2/3 of the panel width, the text the other half ; to me the text has more importance than the image,
  • I’d like to have the table of content always available, maybe on the left panel, or as a floating widget,
  • the “Tools” section in the left panel should be placed at the bottom, as I think it’s the least useful for most readers.

Note: none of the screenshots going to be shown are implemented in the live website. Those are just suggestions that will be implemented if they are accepted and doesn’t create havoc in other places of the website (a.k.a. I have to check the modifications in a lot of screen sizes, browsers and platforms, and I have to check several test pages to be sure everything is o.k.)


@afre: does it look better this way?

I think your display is smaller, but the text is now left-aligned, so I don’t expect weird alignments there

The Rawpedia logo can’t be aligned with the byRawTherapee logo in all screen resolutions. Sorry. The website is meant to be primarily responsive, that is, good looking on smart devices. Some drawbacks have to be expected.

I saw the screenshot, but I didn’t knew what you were talking about. So much better a written explanation. Thanks! :smiley:

I think you’re talking about this?:


Upper part of the image is your W10 render. Lower part is my rendering in W81. Your computer renders the text slightly wider, so also a bit rough. The difference is really slight, but easily visible for sharp eyes :wink: . Sadly I have no idea what’s happening here, nor how to solve it. Any Windows expert around here?

Sorry, but not bigger:

It seems to me that it is an optical illusion caused by a bolder typeface. Anyway, I’ve tweaked a bit the code snippet style, and changed the typeface, too.

Does it look better this way?:


If it’s annoying and I don’t break anything trying to fix it, then it should be fixed. I will look into it. However I can’t promise anything, as mediawiki is «a bit special» when you try to tweak a skin (the look of the website).

Can you see the difference of 1 point? :open_mouth:
Well, the bigger font was intended, as some pages are really large (to be honest, huge), and a slightly bigger font makes it easier to read long sentences in full (a problem that doesn’t happen too often in pixls.us). I will try locally with a font 1 point smaller, to see how it looks.

FullHD = 1920*1080 (same as mine)

It looks this way here:

Not even 1/2 of the screen. Anyway, I’ve scaled the screenshot, and now it looks this way:

Better? The greeting text is already bigger than the main text font, but it can be a bit larger if needed.

I don’t think that’s possible (to me). I’m not a php programmer, I just tweak css stylesheets, and a change like the one you suggest would mean editing the php template. Beyond my knowledge. Sorry.

That means tweaking the php template. Same as previous point. Sorry.

I will look if I can move it to the bottom of the sidebar, but I think mediawiki won’t allow me with pure css. If it’s feasible, I will show a screenshot here so you can tell me if it’s worth it.


Thank you all for your feedback. :slight_smile: . Already expecting more… :laughing:


True enough. The rework of the site presents an opportunity to make it more visible, though. It seems to me that people new to RT need to be directed to that page quite frequently.


Hi. There is a clear visual improvement, and also the fonts allow a better, more attractive reading.


Not really :slight_smile:
I made the screenshot on purpose showing how the pixls site looks like and how rawpedia looks like. Most of the other sites have the look the pixls site has, the fonts look well rendered (even if I enlarge them until they match the size of rawpedia).
The fonts on rawpedia are just not rendered nice enough by Chrome on Windows. It might be that the my computer does not have the fonts used and some other are used instead them? I only have the standard Windows fonts and some Roboto fonts installed to test the elegant theme of darktable.

Here’s what inspector shows me on Firefox on Linux:
Have a look at your Chrome equivalent of Web Developer > Inspector and see whether you have Open Sans.


Hmm … looks like this:

But your hint was good, the chrome inspector also shows what the problem might be:

The link is https://rawpedia.rawtherapee.com/skins/pivot/assets/fonts/fontawesome-webfont.woff2?v=4.7.0

Fonts are fun, eh? :exploding_head:


Not all browsers support all kinds of fonts… For the web there are at least three major formats. Also font awesome is just the icon font, it isn’t used for the body or headline text.

1 Like

Oh, so I was just to happy to find an error :slight_smile:

I was expecting the combination of Windows and Chrome to support most of the things, it should be on top in the ‘internet usage’ :smiley:

Just for comparison I made a screenshot with how rawpedia is rendered by Firefox and by Chrome on Windows 10:

I guess Firefox wins this one, especially for the ‘code snippets’ section.

A lot of sites use Open Sans as a main font, that’s true (not every site) because it’s nice, and readable… and wide


Above is Open Sans, as shown in Google fonts. Below is Fira Sans as shown same place. As I said, Open Sans is nice and slightly wider, but I can’t see Fira Sans bad, or rough, or not readable too.

The font was chosen precisely because even being nice and readable, is narrower. If you take into account pages as the Spanish wavelet documentation, the Color Management addon, or the current French documentation of the Local Lab tool, and try to read them on a smartphone, you will suddenly know what I’m talking about. Documentation needs to be more compact, but readable.

Well, at least that was the idea.

Not likely, as all the fonts are loaded as you load a Rawpedia page. You won’t have them installed locally, but your browser will have them and will make use of them (until you close the browser).

True. And among that, the browser tries to load those icons from 4 different formats, and choose the one that likes the most. It happens that there’s one of the font awesome versions which is not liked by Chrome.

Not strange I guess, as Fira Sans was developed specifically for Firefox OS, from a font used by Mozilla. That doesn’t mean that is a font only well rendered by Firefox. May it mean it’s not well rendered by Chrome on purpose? :smiling_imp::smiling_imp::smiling_imp:

Could you make a test on your computer, please? You will have to use Chromium (the alma mater of Chrome), but without all the «advantages» added by Google.

Download the appropriate version in PORTABLE version (click the Archive link, and after download finishes, extract the contents to a folder you choose)

It’s not the latest version, but you may test if it renders the fonts correctly. If it does, then you’re advised to change your default browser (Chromium is THE SAME browser as Chrome).


Any opinions on the suggested changes I showed in my previous post?