[theme-reviewers] Questions on my first review

Wed Jun 12 19:21:12 UTC 2013

That's why it says "content sharing", specifically. :)

On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Okay, will remove them from my themes.
> This may have to be changed from "Content Sharing buttons/links" to
> "Content Sharing buttons" since social icons linking to social network
> profiles are okay....
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> "Presentational" means "presentation of user-generated content".
>>
>> The best approach is to integrate *support* for Plugins that would
>> provide content-sharing buttons, facebook like buttons, twitter intent
>> links, etc.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM, 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20130612/95e335dc/attachment-0001.html>