mirror of
https://github.com/harvard-edge/cs249r_book.git
synced 2026-05-07 10:08:50 -05:00
61dae6332d
The shared sidebar partial had looser vertical rhythm than the four sites
that ship their own local override (book, kits, labs, mlsysim). Result:
TinyTorch and the landing site rendered noticeably airier than the book's
sidebar — same repo, different feel. The partial's comment was also wrong:
it rationalized "more air than CSS-reset minimums to improve scanning" as
a deliberate choice, but the book (which has 60+ sidebar items per volume
and is the worst case for scanability) actually runs the tighter form,
and the extra vertical air hurt scanability rather than helping it. The
"more air" instinct was for *horizontal* padding (keep 6px so items are
comfortable mouse/touch targets), not vertical — conflating the two put
the sidebar on the wrong rhythm.
Changes to #quarto-announcement-affecting rules:
.sidebar-item a
padding: 4px 8px -> 2px 6px
margin: 1px 0 -> 0.5px 0
line-height: 1.45 -> removed (use Bootstrap default ~1.5)
.sidebar-item a[data-bs-toggle="collapse"] (section headers)
padding: 6px 8px -> removed (inherit from item rule above)
margin-top: 4px -> removed (no section gap; header reads as part of
the same vertical column as its children)
These are the exact values book/kits/labs/mlsysim already ship in their
per-site overrides, so this change:
- immediately tightens TinyTorch and site (they import this partial)
- is a no-op visually on book/kits/labs/mlsysim (their local rules win)
- becomes the single source of truth we can consolidate against later
The partial's file header now documents the rationale so a future pass
doesn't re-loosen vertical padding thinking the tight value was a bug.