[theme-reviewers] Submitting a One-Page Placeholder Theme

Sat Oct 29 20:05:39 UTC 2011

We had the same discussion regarding the ticket tracking themes.  I still believe that ideas like this have a place as a theme as opposed to a plugin.  While the same functionality could be installed as a plugin many users have a specific purpose in mind and want the ease of only having to install a theme that directly relates to that purpose.  A landing page is a great example of that.  Many micro and small businesses only want a landing page and are going to look for a 'Landing Page Theme'.  As many WP users are new to the system, this significantly simplifies the process because they find a theme with the functionality they want, hit activate, set the options and they are done.  If you move the functionality to a plugin you have to expand the design to allow it to work in any theme and with that theme's styling which seems, at least to me, like a lot more work and less useful to the end user experience.  

ryan

On Oct 29, 2011, at 3:54 PM, Doug Stewart wrote:

> A thought just occurred to me:
> Isn't a landing page theme perhaps the wrong approach to begin with?
> Oughtn't it be a plugin that directs all non-logged-in traffic to a
> static landing page while logged-in users can develop the live site
> and then, at the flip of a switch, the landing page status just *poof*
> goes away?
> 
> (This doesn't have a bearing on the special purpose themes issue but
> rather this one particular use case.)
> 
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:12 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>> I'd really like to move past the "blogging"/"non-blogging" consideration as
>> relevant to the discussion of special-use Themes. I think the impasse
>> between our opinions is that you appear to place far more
>> importance/relevance on "blogging" functionality than I do. Again: the
>> codebase is 99% the same between a given Theme with and without blogging
>> functionality. It is a trivial difference.
>> Regarding my my assertion that the primary difference between a "personal
>> blogging" Theme and a "business" Theme is front-end design rather than
>> underlying code/functionality: pretty much any "personal blogging" Theme
>> can, with only changing the CSS, be transformed into a "business" Theme (and
>> vice versa). What functional/code changes to the Theme do you envision as
>> contradictory to that assertion?
>> Chip
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Can this be done by parsing the tags listed in style.css? To me, they
>>> would serve double-duty: identifying features/elements of themes in the
>>> repo, and providing a context to Theme Check and the uploader of what to
>>> test for. For example, the current Theme Check and uploader rules would be
>>> the equivalent of the "blog" context, to be used against submitted themes
>>> with the "blog" tag. (I couldn't resist.)
>>> I disagree with Chip that it's design that differentiates types of themes
>>> - I think it's the developer's intended audience and functionality that
>>> differentiate, stated by the developer in the theme tags (ratings and
>>> downloads will decide how successful they are at it). The fact that so many
>>> of them have similar designs is a result of, not because of,
>>> their differentiation. To me, using front-end design to determine what
>>> constitutes certain types of themes is just constraining designers, and will
>>> start to fail as popular design continues to evolve and change.
>>> Either way, improving the Tag Filer system as Chip suggested above would
>>> be a great help to users, especially as we start to accept more themes
>>> beyond the traditional format (could the current Subject column just be
>>> turned in to a Category column?).
>>> 
>>> On 29 October 2011 13:49, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> It seems we are closing in on a potentially easy flag method ... much
>>>> like setting custom template name in the page template header block, could
>>>> we be looking at adding something to `front-page.php` that can be parsed and
>>>> then recognize the theme as a niche-Theme? This can be done solely in the
>>>> upload check / Theme-Check to start and further implemented into the
>>>> WordPress Administration Panels / WordPress.org as it gains momentum.
>>>> 
>>>> It's just another idea to add to the list, but follows from Chip's point:
>>>> "... because what differentiates a "business" Theme from a "personal" or
>>>> "blogging" Theme is not the presence or absence of blog-post functionality
>>>> support, but rather the *front-end design* of the Theme."
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Cais.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> Not sure I agree with this:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I guess my point is that by considering accepting "niche" themes, we
>>>>> are, in effect, considering accepting themes that do not support the blog
>>>>> use-case (Launch Effect doesn't even have a loop, let alone paginate_links).
>>>>> 
>>>>> Maybe, and maybe not. A "landing page" is just ONE potential "niche" use
>>>>> case. What about the support-ticket system Theme? It could conceivably still
>>>>> have/use blog posts. And that doesn't even get into the myriad ideas I'm
>>>>> sure that clever Theme developers will come up with.
>>>>> But here's the thing:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think a lot of WordPress users and developers out there now just don't
>>>>> see a blog as a requisite part of a WordPress site. I think it would be
>>>>> great if a user could go to the repo, look at the tags and say, "hm, I don't
>>>>> need a blog, I'll just go with this GenericSimpleBiz theme", and get a theme
>>>>> that doesn't have unnecessary code.
>>>>> 
>>>>> The amount of code that differentiates static-Page output from blog-post
>>>>> output is trivial. Off the top of my head, I'd say that 99% of the codebase
>>>>> is identical. Not using a blog isn't a separate *use case*, it's merely a
>>>>> *setting change*. There is really nothing special or "niche" about using a
>>>>> given WordPress Theme to display only static Pages versus using that Theme
>>>>> to display blog posts.
>>>>> While I see great benefit in eradicating the blogging-vs-CMS thinking
>>>>> regarding WordPress, I see no benefit to end users in hosting Themes in the
>>>>> repository for which the only extraordinary "feature" is that they don't
>>>>> support blog post output.
>>>>> What might be far more beneficial would be to improve the Tag Filter
>>>>> system, and allow tags for "Blogging", "Personal", "Business", etc. - or
>>>>> whatever, so that developers could indicate the target user audience for
>>>>> their Themes - because what differentiates a "business" Theme from a
>>>>> "personal" or "blogging" Theme is not the presence or absence of blog-post
>>>>> functionality support, but rather the *front-end design* of the Theme.
>>>>> Chip
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:55 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I guess my point is that by considering accepting "niche" themes, we
>>>>>> are, in effect, considering accepting themes that do not support the blog
>>>>>> use-case (Launch Effect doesn't even have a loop, let alone paginate_links).
>>>>>> I don't consider this a bad thing at all, it's awesome - they're all
>>>>>> WordPress themes. I'd love the theme repo to reflect that, with simple
>>>>>> placeholder and specialty themes right beside everything else; it just has
>>>>>> to be evident when browsing the repo (hence the Blog tag).
>>>>>> I think a lot of WordPress users and developers out there now just
>>>>>> don't see a blog as a requisite part of a WordPress site. I think it would
>>>>>> be great if a user could go to the repo, look at the tags and say, "hm, I
>>>>>> don't need a blog, I'll just go with this GenericSimpleBiz theme", and get a
>>>>>> theme that doesn't have unnecessary code.
>>>>>> Of course, I'm playing devil's advocate a bit here; I know it's not a
>>>>>> tonne more effort or a tonne more code to support blog functionality. I also
>>>>>> recognize that a pile more work would be required by Otto, theme reviewers
>>>>>> and lots of other busy people to accept and evaluate this much wider scope
>>>>>> of themes. I just really like what we're saying about WordPress: you can
>>>>>> have any sort of website you want with WordPress, and here are some themes
>>>>>> we stand behind that can help you do it.
>>>>>> And yes, I totally agree with your frustration in the use of the term
>>>>>> "CMS"; whoever's responsible for spreading this "its-a-blog-or-a-CMS"
>>>>>> mentality should be sent to bed without dinner.
>>>>>> On 29 October 2011 11:19, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I don't agree. A site that doesn't have a blog doesn't constitute a
>>>>>>> "niche"; rather, it is a use-case that is built-in to core. Using WordPress
>>>>>>> "as a CMS" (nb: I detest this phrase; WordPress IS a CMS, no matter *how* it
>>>>>>> is used - and it is almost always intended to mean "without a blog")
>>>>>>> requires nothing more than creating a static Page to serve as the Front
>>>>>>> Page, changing the "Front Page Displays" setting to "static page", assigning
>>>>>>> the appropriate static page, and then NOT assigning a posts page. Easy
>>>>>>> peasy.
>>>>>>>  We don't need special handling for this use-case. Every Theme in the
>>>>>>> repository should handle it without problem. By default, repository-hosted
>>>>>>> Themes are expected to handle this use case; that's why we have Guidelines
>>>>>>> related to display of post metadata and "no comments" type text on static
>>>>>>> pages.
>>>>>>> I see no practical reason for a publicly distributed Theme NOT to
>>>>>>> account for the blog use-case. If we've not adequately covered the non-blog
>>>>>>> use case in the Guidelines, we can always revisit them.
>>>>>>> As for the definition of "niche" Themes: they really do need to be an
>>>>>>> extraordinary use. At this point, it's probably a "know it when we see it"
>>>>>>> kind of thing. I think the "landing page" use case and the "ticket system"
>>>>>>> use case are good, instructive examples.
>>>>>>> Chip
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:42 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> What distinguishes "niche" themes from "regular" themes is often one
>>>>>>>> thing: only partial or no implementation of blog functionality. As far as I
>>>>>>>> can tell, most of the checks from Theme Check and the uploader rely on the
>>>>>>>> theme being usable as a blog.
>>>>>>>> This summer, we found out from the user survey that a lot of
>>>>>>>> developers use WordPress for sites that don't even have a blog component
>>>>>>>> (just a "CMS", for lack of a better term) . To me, niche themes are simply
>>>>>>>> themes that, for whatever reason, choose not to implement full blog
>>>>>>>> functionality.
>>>>>>>> We could add a tag filter under Features that is just "blog". If this
>>>>>>>> tag exists, the uploader and Theme Check plugins check according to the
>>>>>>>> current criteria. If not, a simpler context can be used (presence of
>>>>>>>> readme.txt, etc). Obviously this would require rewriting the uploader and
>>>>>>>> theme eval plugins to react conditionally, but it would seem simpler and
>>>>>>>> more elegant to me than getting in to theme slugs, white-listing specific
>>>>>>>> users, and trying to create specific tag filters for each non-standard
>>>>>>>> use-case.
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> 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
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> -Doug
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers