[theme-reviewers] Theme Review Codex Page

[Bavota San]

Are the complaints coming from reviewers or developers?

I am a reviewer and a developer and in my opinion the guidelines that have been set and the amount of information that has been provided is amazing. As a developer, my themes are now ten times better than they were before all due to the guidelines. If developers don't realize that this process is making them better developers than I say nuts to them. We have to maintain a level of quality and I think these guidelines will help raise the bar and not detract people from wanted to be a part of the WordPress theme community.

I don't think a second page is needed. I like the idea of a brief list at the top, that scrolls the page down to a block of extended instructions.

c.bavota
Web Programmer
c at bavotasan.com
http://bavotasan.com
http://themes.bavotasan.com



Become an Affiliate and earn 40% commission on sale referrals
http://themes.bavotasan.com/affiliates



On 2010-10-20, at 4:54 PM, Chip Bennett wrote:

> I tend to agree, which is why the Guidelines are as detailed as they are.
> 
> But, that level of detail has led to complaints. So, I'm wondering if there is a reasonable way to balance concerns?
> 
> I like your suggestion. It definitely keeps everything together on one page - and helps us summarize the main points/goals that we're trying to accomplish with the Guidelines.
> 
> Chip
> 
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Marty Martin <m at seoserpent.com> wrote:
> I think a bulleted sidebar box or a list at the top of the original page with #anchor links or something like that is best rather than a second page, because if you/we implement the simplified list, then in my opinion designers won't look at the expanded list and it'll increase problems for reviewers.  I could be completely wrong, but that was my gut reaction.
> 
> Marty
> 
> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> All,
> 
> In order to address the complaint that the Theme Review Guidelines are overly complex, and too long/difficult to read, what would everything think of creating two versions:
> Simplified Guidelines, that list just the requirements
> Expanded Guidelines, that go into specific details (listing specific features/functions/implementations/etc.)
> I'm not really sold on this approach (two pages are more difficult to maintain than one, single page), but I can see the benefit of a shorter, less-detailed list of the existing Guidelines. To wit:
> 
> Code Quality
> Themes are required not to have any notices, warnings, errors; or use of deprecated functions.
> Themes are required to utilize current recognized version(s) of (X)HTML and CSS.
> Themes are required to generate no JavaScript errors
> Themes are required to have a valid HTML document HEAD
> Functionality
> Theme is required to incorporate the following WordPress core functionality:
> Automatic Feed Links
> Comments
> Widgets
> Theme is recommended to incorporate the following WordPress core functionality, but is not required to do so. However, if incorporated, functionality must support the core WordPress implementation:
> Navigation Menus
> Post Thumbnails
> Custom Header
> Custom Background
> Visual Editor CSS
> Template Tags and Hooks
> All template tags and hooks used in a Theme are required to be implemented properly, including incorporation of required template tags and hooks where appropriate.
> Including Files
> If incorporated into the Theme, standard template files are required to be called using the correct template tag.
> If incorporated into the Theme, custom template files are required to be called properly.
> Themes are required to include all template files called within the Theme, rather than relying upon legacy Theme support.
> Site Information
> If incorporated into the Theme, site information is required to be called using the correct template tag.
> WordPress-Defined CSS Classes
> Themes are required to support WordPress-defined CSS classes
> Theme Template Files
> Theme is required to include all template files, as specified.
> Licensing
> Themes are required to be 100% GPL-licensed, or use a GPL-compatible license.
> Theme Name
> Themes are required to adhere to Theme Name Guidelines
> Credit Links
> Themes are required to adhere to guidelines for appropriate credit links
> Theme Unit Tests
> The Theme must meet all the requirements of the Theme Unit Test.
> (Or something along these lines. I culled this very quickly from the existing Codex page.)
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Chip
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101020/63a5eb0a/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Logo-Bavotasan.png
Type: image/png
Size: 6061 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101020/63a5eb0a/attachment-0001.png>