[theme-reviewers] Tags and description.

Fri Aug 23 02:47:09 UTC 2013

Well change has to start somewhere. the users might be looking for the latest flat responsive themes etc etc but they wont lift the matter of tags. They dont care because there are so many ways to download themes these days.
WordPress.org theme directory should be the first obvious place to look for themes and it needs to be kept up to date in the same way as core.

Skickat från min Samsung Mobil

-------- Originalmeddelande --------
Från: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> 
Datum: 23-08-2013  4:38  (GMT+01:00) 
Till: "Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers." <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org> 
Rubrik: Re: [theme-reviewers] Tags and description. 

My main problem with that is that it's still adding three tags where currently none exist. I just don't see that flying with the powers-that-be. I think our best bet of getting *any* tags added is to keep to a single tag.

IMHO, the tag list could probably stand for a bit of an overhaul - but that would be a bigger discussion than this one.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com> wrote:
How about this:

Responsive: "A theme with a layout that employs a fluid grid system that changes in response to screen size."
Mobile-Optimized: "A theme that adjusts its layout, reduces the sizes of its media elements and otherwise improves the page load time and user experience for mobile."
Mobile: "A Theme that is designed to be used only on mobile devices."

Notice I left adaptive off of the list, and I'm open to leaving mobile off too if its not needed.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
mobile-responsive and that includes both?

On Aug 22, 2013 5:46 PM, "Emil Uzelac" <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
Whatever is better. :-)

On Aug 22, 2013 5:44 PM, "Chip Bennett" <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
Remember: those tags are, primarily, for *users* rather than for developers. To the end user: what's the tangible difference between "responsive" and "adaptive"? In this case, "end user" could be both the site owner (the one who chooses and installs the Theme) or the site visitor (who would view the website via devices with various screen sizes).

Do a developer, I agree 100% that the two terms have tangible, meaningful differences.

I'm just struggling to see how a user would see any difference whatsoever. In both cases, the Theme is designed to work on devices with variously small screen sizes.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:34 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com> wrote:
I agree and disagree with Chip. I agree we need to find the definition that is most useful to end users and two tags with the same definition is probably confusing. The problem is some end users are more sophisticated than others. Some know what responsive means, some don't. That said, we shouldn't equate the two, because they are different. GIve me a little time and I will propose some new definitions.

@Ulrich We can't just add tags to the guidelines. They need to be supported by core. As part of the THX38 project this will most likely happening. I'm hoping to go to the next THX38 meeting with a list of tags that we, as theme reviewers, want added and feel like we can review properly.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
I'm one of those people who doesn't know the difference between "responsive" and "adaptive". Well, until just now, because I googled it.

The TL;DR of that article:

The distilled definition of a responsive web design is that it will fluidly change and respond to fit any screen or device size.

The condensed definition of an adaptive design is that it will change to fit a predetermined set of screen and device sizes.

From a user perspective, I see no benefit gained from differentiating between the two. One is fluid; the other adjusts to predetermined intermediate sizes.

I would prefer to choose *one* term, e.g. "responsive", to apply to both design implementations. But, we should choose the term that is most meaningful/relevant to *users*. If "mobile-friendly" resonates more with users, let's use that one. If "responsive", then let's use that.

Then, having selected a term, create a meaningful definition that captures both design implementations, such as: "layout changes to fit various screen sizes".

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:10 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com> wrote:
If we are going to get into potential Responsive and Adaptive tags, which we should I'd like to add a few things:
I agree flex-width does not equal responsive.
The thing about responsive and adaptive tags is no one knows the difference between the two and those who do are probably not those who we are trying to help with these tags. I'm wondering if we should have two tags per definition. IE if you qualify for "responsive", you also qualify for "mobile-friendly", and if you qualify for "adaptive" you also qualify for "mobile-optimized." I think the mobile-friendly and mobile-adaptive tags would be more useful to most end users that are less interested in a nerdish need of nerds, like me, to categorize according to the "correct term".

So I'd like to propose that we call responsive/ mobile-friendly  "A theme with a layout that employs a fluid grid system that changes in response to screen size." and adaptive/ mobile-optimized: "A theme with that adapts its layout and functionality based on screen size and device type in order to optimize display and performance on mobile devices."

Is there a need to add a "mobile" tag for themes designed to be used only on mobile devices? I'm really not sure.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
Big +1 for accessibility-ready. 

Chip is correct flex-width is not the same as Responsive or Adaptive. 

What @Konstantin noted yesterday about the tag being left from 
WPCOM made me look over there again and maybe just maybe 
we can copy what they have: "Responsive Layout"

http://i.imgur.com/KsqXF01.png

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Ulrich Pogson <grapplerulrich at gmail.com> wrote:
Amy, you are right. If this was added to the Theme-Check it would make life easier for us.

Here is the GitHub link if anyone is intrested. https://github.com/Pross/theme-check

I have added Chip's comments to the table here. I still need feedback on "microformats" tag.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgFnu461m-SOdFlwS0cwWXVyRkJKeHVvY3pJbTIzc3c&usp=sharing

On 22 August 2013 19:23, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
think that support for even a single post format (e.g. a Gallery Theme) is valid here.
It depends if you count the default post format or not?

The "default" post format (i.e. "standard") is not actually a post format. There is no "default" or "standard" term defined for the post_format taxonomy. It is merely the fallback if no post format is defined. 

 (Note: "Text Domain" header tag is not used and not required; it is information-only, and optional.)

It is used for translating the theme description and page template page. See this article. Responsive has the page templates translated in German if any one wants to test it.

Huh; you learn something new every day!

(Otto/Pross: should this be added to Theme Check, as a corollary test for add_theme_textdomain()?) 

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

_______________________________________________
theme-reviewers mailing list
theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130823/802610ae/attachment-0001.html>