[theme-reviewers] Tags and description.

Fri Aug 23 00:27:23 UTC 2013

How about this:

Responsive: "A theme with a layout that employs a fluid grid system that
changes in response to screen size."
Mobile-Optimized: "A theme that adjusts its layout, reduces the sizes of
its media elements and otherwise improves the page load time and user
experience for mobile."
Mobile: "A Theme that is designed to be used only on mobile devices."

Notice I left adaptive off of the list, and I'm open to leaving mobile off
too if its not needed.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 7:27 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> mobile-responsive and that includes both?
> On Aug 22, 2013 5:46 PM, "Emil Uzelac" <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:
>
>> Whatever is better. :-)
>> On Aug 22, 2013 5:44 PM, "Chip Bennett" <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Remember: those tags are, primarily, for *users* rather than for
>>> developers. To the end user: what's the tangible difference between
>>> "responsive" and "adaptive"? In this case, "end user" could be both the
>>> site owner (the one who chooses and installs the Theme) or the site visitor
>>> (who would view the website via devices with various screen sizes).
>>>
>>> Do a developer, I agree 100% that the two terms have tangible,
>>> meaningful differences.
>>>
>>> I'm just struggling to see how a user would see any difference
>>> whatsoever. In both cases, the Theme is designed to work on devices with
>>> variously small screen sizes.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 3:34 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/f38ec931/attachment-0001.html>