[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

Wed Jun 12 18:57:26 UTC 2013

wrong Facebook link , correct one :
http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like/

On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:24 AM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Social buttons as in the buttons provided by twitter/facebook/SU etc...
> https://twitter.com/about/resources/buttons
> http://developers.facebook.com/docs/reference/plugins/like-box/
>
> My point is these sharing buttons are presentational, how will a plugin
> know my theme's design aesthetic? The data collected by these buttons can
> be used by any theme or plugin with out any vendor lock in...
> Theme author can place these buttons precisely according to the design
> aesthetic, plugins will depend on some hook and quite often the result
> murders the design aesthetic.
>
> Please reconsider....
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:18 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130613/d0dd9eb6/attachment.html>