[theme-reviewers] Tags and description.

Thu Aug 22 19:31:02 UTC 2013

As the guidelines is no longer part of the codex where everyone can update
it who can update the guidelines to include the documentation of the tags?

Who will make the decision on what tags will be removed and which tags will
be added?

On 22 August 2013 21:17, 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<http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/web-designer/what-is-the-difference-between-responsive-vs-adaptive-web-design/>
> .
>
> 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<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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/f585e9b5/attachment-0001.html>