Webware for Python

At 05:28 PM 5/2/2001 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>Here's a rough sketch:
>http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webware.html
>
>NOTE - the links don't work!
>
>The grey location bar would be hidden for the homepage.
>
>Comments, suggestions, contributions??


Looks very promising.

I really like Webware with a cap 'W' and a bolder, thicker font like what 
was used in the Py9 presentation.

I like the colors a lot.

I love the logo: "The Python-Powered Internet Platform". I'll start using 
that in releases and such.

The page width is fixed. I prefer stretched. (Uh oh, here comes the 
fixed-vs-stretched page debate.)

Also, let's assume those that are on webware-devel are on -discuss as well. 
I realize I posted to both as well, but I think we should assume that 
*-devel people subscribe to *-discuss, unless someone objects.


-Chuck

> I really like Webware with a cap 'W' and a bolder,
> thicker font like what was used in the Py9 presentation.
Can you post a copy of this?

> I like the colors a lot.
zdnet news and collab.net were inspirations.  Do you like 
the red 'web'ware?

> I love the logo: "The Python-Powered Internet Platform".
> I'll start using that in releases and such.
What about the other one: The power of the web, with the 
ease of Python?

How about the sections and the subsections?

I'm starting to prefer the inset boxes on the left instead 
of the right.

> The page width is fixed. I prefer stretched. (Uh oh, here
> comes the fixed-vs-stretched page debate.)

I was actually just pondering over that one myself.  I 
can't decide which I prefer.  It's either a fixed page 
width at 730 px or something like 80%.

> Also, let's assume those that are on webware-devel are on
> -discuss as well. I realize I posted to both as well, but
> I think we should assume that *-devel people subscribe to
> *-discuss, unless someone objects.
hmm, of course.

Tavis Rudd <tavis@...> wrote:
> Here's a rough sketch:
> http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webware.html

I like it.  A few notes from buggy ol' Netscape 4.7 (if it weren't
that Mozilla on Linux weren't still kinda crappy, I'd ignore this
platform aestheically -- but at the moment I think 4.7 is important
for a certain demographic).

You main content cell needs a valign=top

The "Sections" header shows up in a serif font, but I think a
sans-serif would look better.

The fonts in Sections look really small and hard to read.  Smaller
fonts always look like crap on NS4.x, though.  They tend to look
better with serif fonts, I think, and with non-absolute sizes, like
x-small or something.  But I haven't really experimented with this, so
I'm not sure.

Should "Home" be on the left?  Seems more natural.  The menu should be
on the left too, as that's conventional.

The font for the copyright message is fairly large.  I expect this
might be because NS4 starts ignoring CSS in the body after a table.


Mozilla does something really weird to it -- all those 1-pixel spaces
between the accent table and the inner table get larger vertically.


And I'd definately go with the 80% over fixed-width.  I often browse
in windows less than 700 pixels.

  Ian

try that page again...

> I like it.  A few notes from buggy ol' Netscape 4.7 (if
> it weren't that Mozilla on Linux weren't still kinda
> crappy, I'd ignore this platform aestheically -- but at
> the moment I think 4.7 is important for a certain
> demographic).

Have you tried KDE's Konqueror?  It's very slick, and 
stable.  Mozilla is the only linux app that has ever 
completely frozen my box - even the network stack was down. 
It did this repeatedly so I gave up.

Tavis Rudd <tavis@...> wrote:
> Have you tried KDE's Konqueror?  It's very slick, and 
> stable.  Mozilla is the only linux app that has ever 
> completely frozen my box - even the network stack was down. 
> It did this repeatedly so I gave up.

Konqueror has done bad things to my computer, actually -- something
about spawning several dozen copies of some library.  I don't much
like Mozilla, but Galeon (which uses the Mozilla renderer) is really
nice (though it still seems to have some significant memory leaks).

I should probably try Konqueror again.  NS4 is still the one really
reliable browser though, in relative terms.

  Ian

Tavis Rudd wrote:

> Here's a rough sketch:
> http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webware.html

Re: Branding

"webware" is a pretty generic word, only slightly less generic than "software".  When I looked one month ago, there was a webware.com, and a startup company trying to make it into a brand.  When I looked just now, C|net, purchaser of generic names, had snatched it.   I would suggest building the brand around "Webware for Python", rather than  just "Webware".

On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 04:40:42AM -0700, Terrel Shumway wrote:
> "webware" is a pretty generic word, only slightly less generic than
> "software".  When I looked one month ago, there was a webware.com, and a
> startup company trying to make it into a brand.  When I looked just now,
> C|net, purchaser of generic names, had snatched it.   I would suggest
> building the brand around "Webware for Python", rather than  just "Webware".

PyWebware?
PWebware?  (first syllable as in "pueblo")

-- 
-Mike (Iron) Orr, iron@...  (if mail problems: mso@...)
   http://mso.oz.net/     English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol

> You might want to add the "Python Powered" image and
> you'll need to add the "SourceForge Hosted" image.

sure, but pitty 'python-powered' is so ugly - don't tell 
Just van Rossum I said that ;-) Has anyone seen a copy of 
it with proper antialiasing around the edges?

While we're on the topic of branding ...

Here's a proposal that I don't really expect you guys to 
accept.  This is a big ask, but seeing as Webware is still 
reasonably young and flexible I thought what the hell...

Onions are ubiquitous.  They grow almost anywhere and can 
be used in almost any dish.  You'll find them 
from the bachelor pad to the haut cuisine restaurant, 
because they work well with others and are hard to botch, 
yet offer a surprising array of tastes when handled with 
care.

Onions are layered.  You can cook with an entire onion, or 
even several, but you can also slice off a just a few 
rings.  Because of the layers, onions can be 
sliced into multitude of shapes.

Onions are easy to understand.  There's not much to them, 
but you can certainly do a lot with them.

And of course, red onions offer the most refined taste and 
are accompanied by less tears when being prepared.

So it should be with web development platforms.  They 
should hardy and work well with others; be easy to use for 
simple and complex tasks alike; offer enough flavour that 
you can create exquisite sites/programs with them; 
shouldn't be too prescriptive or demanding; and should 
allow you to use a little or alot, depending on your 
tastes.  Nor should they make you cry.

So what does this have to do with Webware?  

- First, webware.com, .org, and .net are all taken while 
redonions.org and .net are available.  

- Second, although it is descriptive 'webware' doesn't 
conjure up an strong images or associations - great for 
branding. Think about the image and taste of a  good red 
onion ;-)

- Third, 'redonions' as a search term offers very little 
competition and 'redonions python' offers none.  I suppose 
the same is true for 'webware'.

- Fourth, 'red'onions looks great in logo form.
Have a look at 
http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/redonions.html for a taste

- Fifth, the plural of redonion, aside from being available 
as a domain, implies that the product is a collection of 
individual onions that you can choose from.  So it is with 
Webware: 'A suite of...'

- Sixth, the name is silly enough to fit in with the 
'Pythonic' tradition of silly names.

Tavis ;-)

On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 10:49:41AM -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> - First, webware.com, .org, and .net are all taken while 
> redonions.org and .net are available.  

Or webonions.com, webonions.net, webonions.org, which are also free.

"Looking into a glass onion, see how the other half lives...
I told you about Strawberry Fields, the place where nothing is real.
Well, here's another place you can be, listen to me..."

> Onions are layered.  You can cook with an entire onion, or 
> even several, but you can also slice off a just a few 
> rings.  Because of the layers, onions can be 
> sliced into multitude of shapes.

An excellent point.  The reason I got into Webware was because of
its layering.

Hmm, even if we don't change the program name, a small onion would
make a good mascot.  Perhaps an onion with a "W" on it at the bottom
of the page. (Or "WW", as long as VolksWagen doesn't complain.)

-- 
-Mike (Iron) Orr, iron@...  (if mail problems: mso@...)
   http://mso.oz.net/     English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol

Probably I'm paranoid, but be careful here: Aren't that vegetables the one
which make you weep the deeper you go - layer for layer?

Sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

Franz


> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: webware-discuss-admin@...
> [mailto:webware-discuss-admin@... Auftrag von Tavis
> Rudd
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 03. Mai 2001 19:50
> An: Webware-discuss@...
> Betreff: [Webware-discuss] branding of webware
>
>
>
> While we're on the topic of branding ...
>
> Here's a proposal that I don't really expect you guys to
> accept.  This is a big ask, but seeing as Webware is still
> reasonably young and flexible I thought what the hell...
>
> Onions are ubiquitous.  They grow almost anywhere and can
> be used in almost any dish.  You'll find them
> from the bachelor pad to the haut cuisine restaurant,
> because they work well with others and are hard to botch,
> yet offer a surprising array of tastes when handled with
> care.
>
> Onions are layered.  You can cook with an entire onion, or
> even several, but you can also slice off a just a few
> rings.  Because of the layers, onions can be
> sliced into multitude of shapes.
>
> Onions are easy to understand.  There's not much to them,
> but you can certainly do a lot with them.
>
> And of course, red onions offer the most refined taste and
> are accompanied by less tears when being prepared.
>
> So it should be with web development platforms.  They
> should hardy and work well with others; be easy to use for
> simple and complex tasks alike; offer enough flavour that
> you can create exquisite sites/programs with them;
> shouldn't be too prescriptive or demanding; and should
> allow you to use a little or alot, depending on your
> tastes.  Nor should they make you cry.
>
> So what does this have to do with Webware?
>
> - First, webware.com, .org, and .net are all taken while
> redonions.org and .net are available.
>
> - Second, although it is descriptive 'webware' doesn't
> conjure up an strong images or associations - great for
> branding. Think about the image and taste of a  good red
> onion ;-)
>
> - Third, 'redonions' as a search term offers very little
> competition and 'redonions python' offers none.  I suppose
> the same is true for 'webware'.
>
> - Fourth, 'red'onions looks great in logo form.
> Have a look at
> http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/redonions.html for a taste
>
> - Fifth, the plural of redonion, aside from being available
> as a domain, implies that the product is a collection of
> individual onions that you can choose from.  So it is with
> Webware: 'A suite of...'
>
> - Sixth, the name is silly enough to fit in with the
> 'Pythonic' tradition of silly names.
>
> Tavis ;-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Webware-discuss mailing list
> Webware-discuss@...
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/webware-discuss
>

> Or webonions.com, webonions.net, webonions.org, which are
> also free.
We could be very cheeky and snap that up - then call the 
subcomponents of Webware redOnion, globeOnion, 
spanishOnion, etc. ;-)

> "W" on it at the bottom of the page. (Or "WW", as long as
> VolksWagen doesn't complain.)
I played around with WW: one red, one white.  It looks ok.

Tavis Rudd <tavis@...> wrote:
> While we're on the topic of branding ...
> 
> Here's a proposal that I don't really expect you guys to 
> accept.  This is a big ask, but seeing as Webware is still 
> reasonably young and flexible I thought what the hell...

There sure are a bunch of Webwares out there.  Mostly they aren't
products, at least, but there is a suite of software called Webware:
http://www.extropia.com/productsandservices/webwaresuite20.html 
http://www.stars.com/Software/Open/WhitePaper/
  Goes so far as to call this Webware suite a Framework
http://www.edime.com.au/webware/webware.html
  A web server for NetWare.
http://www.cooksonsolutions.com/training_aboutTEL.php3
  Not as bad: CPS WebWare (training software)

But there is also a Webware Inc., Webware Solutions Inc., XTreme
Webware, C|Net's Webware, a consulting place in Austria and another in
the Czech Republic, Silk Webware, Walldorf Webware, Joxx Webware,
Enigma WebWaRE, Webware (PC), Webware Systems, D-Squared WebWare,
WebWare Design, and more if I kept going down the list.

Webware is also used as a generic term for software-on-the-web in some
places.

I think the NetWare WebWare and WebWare Suite are the biggest
name-conflicts.

I *do* like Webware as a name because it uses the word "Web" which
gives at least a little indication of what it does.  Redonion doesn't
do that, though Webonion might.  Webonion.com and is taken, but not
used (I hate when people do that), webonion.net is a personal page --
webonion.org is free, though, which is most important.

  Ian

I liked Mike's suggestion so I snapped up webonions.com, 
.org, and .net in case I'm taken seriously on this one.

'webonions' in google returns no results. same with 
'webonion'

if you want to try webonions out on your eyes:
http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webonions.html

> I *do* like Webware as a name because it uses the word
> "Web" which gives at least a little indication of what it
> does.  Redonion doesn't do that, though Webonion might. 
> Webonion.com and is taken, but not used (I hate when
> people do that), webonion.net is a personal page --
> webonion.org is free, though, which is most important.
>
>   Ian

Tavis Rudd <tavis@...> wrote:
> I liked Mike's suggestion so I snapped up webonions.com, 
> .org, and .net in case I'm taken seriously on this one.
> 
> 'webonions' in google returns no results. same with 
> 'webonion'

Are you sure the plural is best?  When I see a plural like that I
think about a portal or something, while a singular is more like an
entity or product.  Webware has distinct components, but it is still a
singular item.

  Ian

> Are you sure the plural is best?  When I see a plural
> like that I think about a portal or something, while a
> singular is more like an entity or product.  Webware has
> distinct components, but it is still a singular item.

It fits with the onion metaphor, use as many as you want in 
your dish.  It also emphasises the non-monolithic nature of 
webware - 'a suite of ...' - and fits with the servlet 
paradigm.

At 06:24 PM 5/2/2001 -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
>I was actually just pondering over that one myself.  I
>can't decide which I prefer.  It's either a fixed page
>width at 730 px or something like 80%.

I high percentage like 80 or 85 is definitely the way to go. We all have 
different sized screens. Fixed widths for physical paper.

-Chuck

> I high percentage like 80 or 85 is definitely the way to
> go. We all have different sized screens. Fixed widths for
> physical paper.

I've already reset it to 90%.  
http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webware.html

Have you been following the branding thread?  What's your 
opinion of the proposal?  It was half in jest, originally 
...

> if you want to try webonions out on your eyes:
> http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webonions.html

take another look at the bottom of the page now if you've 
already looked at it.

On Thu, May 03, 2001 at 12:00:24PM -0700, Tavis Rudd wrote:
> if you want to try webonions out on your eyes:
> http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webonions.html

A couple comments:

** The text logo (webonions.gif) looks very professional.  Kudos!

** The "Home | Learn ..." line and the "Sections" header are barely
readable on my browser.  That shade of blue won't work for a background
color.  (Netscape 4.73 on Linux)

** DTML should be capitalized, and probably CGI too.  "Price-tag" can
be "price tag".

** Perhaps make the strands coming out the top of the onion into a "W"
by combining the two middle tentacles and spreading the top out a little
more.  

** "The power of the web, with the ease of Python!" logically belongs
as a list item rather than separate.  If you don't want to make it a 
list item, how about adding "..." before the phrase to connect it with
the part above.

-- 
-Mike (Iron) Orr, iron@...  (if mail problems: mso@...)
   http://mso.oz.net/     English * Esperanto * Russkiy * Deutsch * Espan~ol

> > http://calrudd.com/TemplateServer/webonions.html
Try it again.

> ** The "Home | Learn ..." line and the "Sections" header
> are barely readable on my browser.  That shade of blue
> won't work for a background color.  (Netscape 4.73 on
> Linux)
I don't follow you.  The text is bold white isn't it?  Is 
the text size a problem?

> ** Perhaps make the strands coming out the top of the
> onion into a "W" by combining the two middle tentacles
> and spreading the top out a little more.
or the second 'o' sliced up like an onion.

I take this means you're happy with 'webonions'...  How 
about everyone else?  Chuck??