Menu
▾
▴
phpwebsite-developers
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2006-02-27 02:16:34
|
On 26 Feb 2006, at 19:56, Michael H=F8j Rasmussen wrote: > Hi Shaun and Kenneth. > > This just to inform you about some changes I have made today to the > phpWebSite user interface. > > Starting from the article I once wrote about consistent user =20 > interface in > phpWebSite, and the following discussion in the community, I have =20 > started to > give phpWebSite a small face lift. I have mainly tried to get a =20 > consistent > look and feel across lists and input forms. > > My first priority was to ensure, that almost all of my changes =20 > would work > with older css files and those themes already developed to =20 > phpWebSite. My > second priority was to stay as close to the original layout as =20 > possible. My > third and final priority has been to open up for some smarter and more > powerful ways of styling phpWebSite. > > I think the most controversial decision I have made so far is the =20 > layout of > the input forms. Hopefully it won't give to much excitement in the > community. > > I know the release date for 0.10.3 is getting closer. I have only =20 > managed to > update the templates for linkman, skeleton and users module. =20 > Skeleton is > only for documentary purpose. I will try to look at the other =20 > modules the > following days and see how far I get. I do not think we should wait =20= > for a > complete face lift of all modules before we release 0.10.3, but =20 > hopefully I > can manage to get a couple of more modules in, before 0.10.3 is =20 > locked down > for release candidate 1. > Michael, Just looking through these changes so far. Moving as much html out of the php code as possible is a good idea. I'd personally prefer keeping H1 and H3 instead of introducing H2 =20 into the templates as the title and sub title, as that will break =20 less themes and certainly it won't break my themes since I rely on =20 the templates containing H1 and H3. It's a long established tradition =20= I don't think we should change. I use sIFR replacement on H1 and H3 a =20= lot for instance so chaning to H2 will give me crap fonts again. You've introduced more tables. Generally, that's to be avoided. In =20 particular, in the comments module, it makes the form wider. Please =20 be aware that some users are using fixed width themes that may only =20 have room for narrow layouts of 400px. Creating forms which have the =20 label alongside the text entry causes problems for those themes. I =20 also think adding tables to layout forms is retrogressive. =20 Personally, I'd be inclined to use a definition list for form layout. If it can be avoided, I'd rather not use inline styles if we're =20 defining a set of classes now. Seems pointless. I noticed you'd added 'datatable', 'label', 'value' and 'formtable' =20 classes. These need to be formalised and documented so that users who =20= may have defined them already in their own themes know they are used. =20= We shouldn't introduce CSS classes without defining a set that we're =20 going to stick with going forward in to Fallout. Saying that, I don't =20= know if Matt's defined a set yet for Fallout so now is possibly our =20 chance. :-) I've copied this to the developers list for further input. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk aegis hosting - http://www.aegishosting.co.uk |
|
From: Michael H. R. <po...@mi...> - 2006-02-27 08:36:16
|
> I'd personally prefer keeping H1 and H3 instead of introducing H2 > into the templates as the title and sub title, as that will break > less themes and certainly it won't break my themes since I rely on > the templates containing H1 and H3. It's a long established tradition > I don't think we should change. I use sIFR replacement on H1 and H3 a > lot for instance so chaning to H2 will give me crap fonts again. As I recall, I only changed the heading tag in the Skeleton module (I really don't understand why H2 has been left out in the beginning). That said I would never make such a change to any of the other modules. I am well aware that such a change would result in a great impact, that would affect sites like yours, running some sort of replacement for the heading tags. > You've introduced more tables. Generally, that's to be avoided. In > particular, in the comments module, it makes the form wider. Please > be aware that some users are using fixed width themes that may only > have room for narrow layouts of 400px. Creating forms which have the > label alongside the text entry causes problems for those themes. I > also think adding tables to layout forms is retrogressive. > Personally, I'd be inclined to use a definition list for form layout. That's right, I have introduced more tables. But I have also removed some, replacing them with div's. I am trying to go for a design where we use tables for lists (a list of users, a list of links, a list of notes etc.) and tables for input forms (add user, add link, add note etc.). If you look across phpWebsite today you will see 2 different layout standards for input forms: 1) labels and input fields are listed vertical and 2) label and input field are listed horizontal in a grid layout. In the second approach it is rather common to use a table to construct the grid. Generally we should only use one approach, and I have chosen to go for the grid layout. The last time this was discussed I sensed a positive attitude for the grid layout, which is used in a vast number of CVS designs today, and I certainly dont find this to be retrogressive. I know lots of users a using a fixed width theme. That's why I have added the style "formtable" to all of the input tables I have created, and added the class "label" to the first column and "value" to the second. Using those styles, it should be possible to style the input forms so they doesn't break a fixed width layout. I know the change to the comments module is not optimal. I worked with this small input form for hours, trying different approaches. I finally decided to stick with the grid layout, but if you could come up with a more suitable design, please let me know. If there is a great opposition against the grid layout in the phpWebSite community, I will be happy to remove it, and change it to a vertical look. Personally I find the grid layout to be more tempting and I feel it has a more professional look. But this is my personal opinion, and if the majority feels different, then I am more than willing to drop the grid layout. > If it can be avoided, I'd rather not use inline styles if we're > defining a set of classes now. Seems pointless. Well not to me. I personally think that inline styles can be rather useful. In an ideal world, I would have reworked the html design entirely, causing all existing themes to be deprecated, but on the same time added the ability for styling phpWebSite ala csszengarden. This is however not a suitable approach. Like I mentioned in my previous mail, my first priority was to ensure, that almost all of my changes would work with older css files and those themes already developed to phpWebSite. That's why I have used some inline styles, which mainly replaces existing html attributes like valign, align and nowrap. > I noticed you'd added 'datatable', 'label', 'value' and 'formtable' > classes. These need to be formalised and documented so that users who > may have defined them already in their own themes know they are used. > We shouldn't introduce CSS classes without defining a set that we're > going to stick with going forward in to Fallout. Saying that, I don't > know if Matt's defined a set yet for Fallout so now is possibly our > chance. :-) I have introduced the classes you mention hoping that they can give users and designers a more powerful way of styling phpWebSite. It is my plan that I will try to update the majority of existing 0.10.x modules to use the new styles. It is very important to me to stress out, that the new styles are meant to be optional, and that I don't intent to introduce more styles. Once again I would like to point out, that my decision is due to the fact that I don't intend to completely rework the existing design in 0.10.x. I will leave this to Matt and the upcoming Fallout. What I have seen in Fallout so far, Matt has given the user interface an extensive new look and feel. Take the new controlpanel for instance, with the tabbed interface and matching styles. I am a bit worried about the consequences if we try to mix styles between 0.10.x and Fallout. I believe that styling Fallout will be a whole new experience compared to what we have been used to. I have no plans of revolutionize the look and feel of 0.10.x, but only intend to give it a small face lift, trying to achieve a more consistent design between the different modules. In relation to the naming of the few styles I have introduced, I have not come across those names in any of the existing modules or any 3rd party modules. I hope and cross my fingers that it should be safe to go with the new names. I would like to say, that in my years of experience working with user interface and html design, I have realised that this is one of the most sensitive and controversial areas of developing software. I know that some of my changes could cause a lot of commotion in the community, but please keep in mind that I only plan to give phpWebSite a more consistent look and feel. I do not plan change the overall look of phpWebSite and I do not plan to introduce a table-less design. - Michael (TechElephant) |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2006-02-27 13:19:34
|
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:36 +0100, Michael H. Rasmussen wrote: > Too much to copy :) Table forms: I do this as well. In Fallout there is a class called form-table. The labels for the form elements are class="label". I prefer the left / right approach. I know some people prefer title top and form bottom. Unfortunately, the table format makes the former easier and the latter almost impossible. We'll see how it pans out. I see from where both Shaun and Michael are coming. Shaun wants to ensure backward compatibility. Michael wants consistent form. You are both right. There is a balance between pleasing and annoying the user after an update. Ensure that balance tips towards the positive. I don't suggest inline style but phpwebsite 0.10.x is kinda weak in this regard. You can't be sure people will adopt new classes in their style sheets and you don't want their view to radically change. Something I would like as a result of this discussion is a consensus of what Fallout should contain. I want a set of persistent styles that developers can count on. Like Michael mentioned, I would like to see Fallout ship with a theme set that can be edited some what like the ZenGarden site. Thanks for everyone's hard work, Matt -- Matthew McNaney Electronic Student Services Appalachian State University http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2006-02-27 13:42:52
|
On 27 Feb 2006, at 13:21, Matthew McNaney wrote: > On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 09:36 +0100, Michael H. Rasmussen wrote: >> Too much to copy :) > > Table forms: > I do this as well. In Fallout there is a class called form-table. The > labels for the form elements are class="label". If you're using a table though, why not use th and td as the label and value pair? 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="bg_medium" and style the th more but that will break compatibility. > > I prefer the left / right approach. I know some people prefer title > top > and form bottom. Unfortunately, the table format makes the former > easier > and the latter almost impossible. > True. Although I quite like definition lists for this purpose where the form is a pair of label/value. It falls apart when you've got something like menuman though. See http://www.clagnut.com/blog/241/ There's also the semantically correct way of using label and fieldset but that's possibly an issue with some old browsers still. See http:// www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/03/24/ > We'll see how it pans out. I see from where both Shaun and Michael are > coming. Shaun wants to ensure backward compatibility. Michael wants > consistent form. You are both right. There is a balance between > pleasing > and annoying the user after an update. Ensure that balance tips > towards > the positive. > Actually, I'm kind of leaning towards some breaks if we can introduce semantic consistent layout. > I don't suggest inline style but phpwebsite 0.10.x is kinda weak in > this > regard. You can't be sure people will adopt new classes in their style > sheets and you don't want their view to radically change. I think we might get away with some visual breakage if we have a defined set of classes we use that people can quickly fix. It'd be a pity not to at this point. > > Something I would like as a result of this discussion is a > consensus of > what Fallout should contain. I want a set of persistent styles that > developers can count on. Like Michael mentioned, I would like to see > Fallout ship with a theme set that can be edited some what like the > ZenGarden site. > From the other side, trying to get consistent element building into the code would also be useful going ahead. We can identify where we have problems applying a consistent look now because of module developers inconsistent UI design. And hopefully functions can be put in place to build things like menus, forms and lists so that module developers don't have to reinvent. Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk aegis hosting - http://www.aegishosting.co.uk |
|
From: Matthew M. <ma...@tu...> - 2006-02-27 16:35:05
|
On Mon, 2006-02-27 at 13:42 +0000, Shaun Murray wrote:
> If you're using a table though, why not use th and td as the label
> and value pair?
Well I use 'th' for column headings but not in rows:
th | th
-------------
td | td
but not
th | td
-------------
th | td
If we decide that 'th' can take the place of label in form table, I'm
fine with it. You could do this though:
<div class="form-table">
<span class="label>Name</span><span>{INPUT}</span>
</div>
> 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="bg_medium" and style the th more but
> that will break compatibility.
Agreed. I would like to get rid of redundancy.
> There's also the semantically correct way of using label and fieldset
> but that's possibly an issue with some old browsers still. See http://
> www.themaninblue.com/writing/perspective/2004/03/24/
The form class in Fallout does that automatically. See the setLabel
function.
> Actually, I'm kind of leaning towards some breaks if we can introduce
> semantic consistent layout.
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.
Thanks Shaun,
Matt
--
Matthew McNaney
Electronic Student Services
Appalachian State University
http://phpwebsite.appstate.edu
|
|
From: Verdon V. <ve...@ve...> - 2006-02-27 17:01:13
|
On 27-Feb-06, at 11:08 AM, Matthew McNaney wrote: >> Actually, I'm kind of leaning towards some breaks if we can introduce >> semantic consistent layout. > > 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. > > Thanks Shaun, > Matt > I would agree with this :) verdon |
|
From: Shaun M. <sh...@ae...> - 2006-02-27 17:14:49
|
On 27 Feb 2006, at 16:08, Matthew McNaney wrote: > > 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. > ok. No breaking things until fallout. ;-) Shaun aegis design - http://www.aegisdesign.co.uk aegis hosting - http://www.aegishosting.co.uk |
|
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) |
|
From: <po...@mi...> - 2006-02-27 21:31:09
|
> I prefer the left / right approach. I know some people prefer title top > and form bottom. Unfortunately, the table format makes the former easier > and the latter almost impossible. I agree 100% on this. But then again, it is a matter of taste. I'm open for any suggestions so if the majority decides to go for the title top and form bottom, then I'll change the design asap. My goal right now is to stick with one design standard and implement it across all of the current 0.10.x modules. That would give the consistent design that I would really like to see in 0.10.x. > We'll see how it pans out. I see from where both Shaun and Michael are > coming. Shaun wants to ensure backward compatibility. Michael wants > consistent form. You are both right. There is a balance between pleasing > and annoying the user after an update. Ensure that balance tips towards > the positive. Once again I agree 100%. I think you will see that I try not to make any radical changes when it comes to new styles. The one I have added so far is optional. Developers shouldn't see any differences in the new layout, besides forms changing to the grid layout. The old styles are still used, and themes should work unchanged when 0.10.3 is released. Once I have added the new classes to all of the lists and input forms it would add the possibility of doing a more powerful styling. > I don't suggest inline style but phpwebsite 0.10.x is kinda weak in this > regard. You can't be sure people will adopt new classes in their style > sheets and you don't want their view to radically change. If you look at the changes I have made so far, the only inline styles I have added is mainly replacements of html attributes. I have made this decision because I like inline styles in preference of attributes, but then again, I think it is a matter of taste. If anyone has some technical reasons why we should stick with attributes then please let me know. Replacing the inline styles with new classes would cause everyone to adapt them in the current themes, and that would deviate from my intention of not making a radical change to 0.10.x. > Something I would like as a result of this discussion is a consensus of > what Fallout should contain. I want a set of persistent styles that > developers can count on. Like Michael mentioned, I would like to see > Fallout ship with a theme set that can be edited some what like the > ZenGarden site. For me it is very important to remember, that Fallout is in the pipeline. If 0.10.x was the code base we should continue to work on, then I would have done a great amount of work trying to convince everybody to give the design an extensive face lift. But Fallout is soon to be a reality (did you get this Matt?), and I hope that everyone agrees, that this is where we have the change to set a new standard for the user interface and how it is going to be styled. - Michael (TechElephant) |
×
Want the latest updates on software, tech news, and AI?
Get latest updates about software, tech news, and AI from SourceForge directly in your inbox once a month.
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X