[theme-reviewers] Tags and description.

Thu Aug 22 19:37:34 UTC 2013

I agree with Chip 100% +1 for "responsive"

http://www.signalfire.us/mobile-friendly-vs-mobile-optimized-vs-responsive-design/

Big difference between them.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 2:34 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<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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130822/91068003/attachment.html>