[theme-reviewers] Tags and description.

[Josh Pollock]

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<https://foxnet-themes.fi/2013/07/02/translating-custom-page-template-names/>.
>>>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130822/e62fb609/attachment-0001.html>