[theme-reviewers] Tags and description.

Fri Aug 23 02:38:34 UTC 2013

My main problem with that is that it's still adding three tags where
currently none exist. I just don't see that flying with the powers-that-be.
I think our best bet of getting *any* tags added is to keep to a single tag.

IMHO, the tag list could probably stand for a bit of an overhaul - but that
would be a bigger discussion than this one.

On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 8:27 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130822/49ca2f0b/attachment-0001.html>