From: <po...@mi...> - 2006-02-27 21:36:57
|
> > We're pretty inconsistent with using th for table headers. I've been > > generally putting them in where I can and losing the bold tags. In > > theory we could lose the class=3D"bg_medium" and style the th more = but > > that will break compatibility. >=20 > Agreed. I would like to get rid of redundancy. I agree as well. I was just about to make such a change to 0.10.3, but I think we need to decide how radical a change we want to make with the current release, compared to Fallout. > > Actually, I'm kind of leaning towards some breaks if we can = introduce > > semantic consistent layout. >=20 > The question: is it too far in the game to do this? My feeling was = that > with Fallout we have an 'excuse' to break things. With 0.10.x, it may = be > view unfavorably. I would like to take the opportunity to give you an idea of my plans = with the changes I have made so far. For 0.10.3 I will continue to implement = the consistent design I have already started. I don=92t know how many = modules I can change before the release candidate, but I'll try to get as far as possible. Once 0.10.3 is out, I think we should consider the possibility of going further with this work. I my opinion it is not only a matter of adding = new styles. Some modules could benefit for a more user-friendly workflow. I would suggest that we take one module at a time, and look closer into = how we can change the interface as well as the flow between input forms. I have already started to make some prototypes, and if we can agree on the = changes, then we need to decide how we should go further with the changes. It = would involve some coding and I would no doubt need a lot of help. I would = like to stress out, that I have no plans for adding new features, and = introducing changes to the database layout. It is only a matter of how the workflow = is organised and how the different pages communicate with each other. - Michael (TechElephant) |