[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

Wed Jun 12 18:48:26 UTC 2013

Please clarify what you mean by "social buttons".

Content-sharing buttons (i.e. like the "Share This" Plugin) aren't
presentational.

Icon links to social network profiles are marginally presentational, and
are analogous to favicons.

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:42 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> but i thought you said social buttons are fine :
>
> "Things that are marginally presentational (e.g. sharing links)? Using the
> Favicon guidelines as a model is reasonable."
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:08 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> I've added some clarification to the Guidelines:
>> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Presentation_vs_Functionality
>>
>> I also removed the "draft" designation from the hook callback guidelines.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Peter Kakoma <kakomap at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> It reads like it was written by a lawyer :-)
>>>
>>> Thanks Chip. That puts it  to rest for me. The bit about guidelines
>>> being a moving target is also on point.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:26 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is the defining principle in the Guidelines:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>    - Presentation Vs. Functionality<http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Presentation_vs_Functionality>
>>>>    :
>>>>       - Since the purpose of Themes is to define the presentation of
>>>>       user content, Themes must not be used to define the generation of user
>>>>       content, or to define Theme-independent site options or functionality.
>>>>
>>>> It's somewhat difficult to try to list every possible issue in the
>>>> Guidelines, nor do we want to.
>>>>
>>>> I would also like to reiterate: the intention has always been for
>>>> continual improvement of the Guidelines, and continually raising the
>>>> quality standard. Thus, there may be Themes in the directory that passed
>>>> previous iterations of the Guidelines, but that would not pass the current
>>>> iteration. Also, because reviews are performed by actual humans, who can
>>>> interpret Guidelines differently, the review standard probably will never
>>>> be 100% consistent. So, the "but there are other Themes in the directory
>>>> that do X" is never a valid argument. The Guidelines may have changed; we
>>>> reviewers may simply have screwed up and allowed something that was against
>>>> the guidelines. Whatever the case: current Themes under review are expected
>>>> to conform to the current Guidelines.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Peter Kakoma <kakomap at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The issue is that there is no definitive guideline about
>>>>> {plugin-territory-stuff}. I believe the end-goal of this discussion is to
>>>>> draft one and share it with the rest of the world (otherwise we'll be
>>>>> discussing this again two months from now when a first-time reviewer asks
>>>>> the same question)
>>>>>
>>>>> And in as much as my theme is guilty of adding Analytics, I agree with
>>>>> you-the line should be drawn at non-presentational stuff (*cough* SEO,
>>>>> *cough*). Removing Analytics now, updating the theme.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't agree that the Favicon guidelines are appropriate for
>>>>>> extending to all {plugin territory} functionality.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Things that are marginally presentational (e.g. sharing links)? Using
>>>>>> the Favicon guidelines as a model is reasonable. But Google Analytics: no
>>>>>> reason to facilitate Themes adding this functionality. It's not in any way
>>>>>> whatsoever presentational. As far as I'm concerned, that's an absolute line
>>>>>> of demarcation. If it's not in any way presentational, it doesn't belong in
>>>>>> a Theme, opt-in/disabled-by-default or otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 8:37 AM, Edward Caissie <
>>>>>> edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:46 AM, Peter Kakoma <kakomap at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Themes are recommended not to implement custom
>>>>>>>> {plugin-territory-stuff} functionality.
>>>>>>>> If implemented, {plugin-territory-stuff} functionality is required
>>>>>>>> to be opt-in, and disabled by default.
>>>>>>>> If implemented, {plugin-territory-stuff} functionality is required
>>>>>>>> to support user-defined {plugin-territory-stuff} images
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Those points are fairly well sorted except for the third which is
>>>>>>> really more relevant to the original ideas behind the use of favicons, but
>>>>>>> if you use the first two points as your benchmark then you should be (for
>>>>>>> the most part but not 100% guaranteed) fine with going forward.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Edward Caissie
>>>>>>> aka Cais.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> www.urbanlegendkampala.com
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> www.urbanlegendkampala.com
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130612/6fa50d72/attachment.html>