X-Git-Url: http://git.vanrenterghem.biz/git.ikiwiki.info.git/blobdiff_plain/bbce8b15ccfccbc3bfb0a8e231649fa3870e706b..e71622d233660b5ba305d68e586d7d14ff2124e6:/doc/todo/Modern_standard_layout.mdwn?ds=sidebyside diff --git a/doc/todo/Modern_standard_layout.mdwn b/doc/todo/Modern_standard_layout.mdwn index feb08e8ac..6fd41b7dd 100644 --- a/doc/todo/Modern_standard_layout.mdwn +++ b/doc/todo/Modern_standard_layout.mdwn @@ -1,3 +1,85 @@ I think it would be a good idea to think about the standard layout style of ikiwiki, the current layout used in a standard setup and on ikiwiki.info as well looks a bit old-fashioned to me. I guess that a nice modern layout would attract more new ikiwiki users and boost the ikwiki community... > FWIW, I agree. The actiontabs [[theme|themes]] would be a better default, but something which showed what ikiwiki was capable of (or more precicely: that ikiwiki is as capable as other popular wiki softwares) would be better still. — [[Jon]] + +>> As an author of plugins that interact with the UI, I think it's good that +>> a *minimal* ikiwiki has a minimal anti-theme, and that plugins are +>> developed against the anti-theme - it's a "blank slate" for themes. +>> [[plugins/contrib/trail]] was much easier to get working in +>> the default anti-theme than in actiontabs and blueview. +>> +>> Technical detail: all the standard themes are done by appending to the +>> anti-theme's CSS (albeit in ikiwiki's build system rather than during +>> the wiki build), rather than by replacing it - so themes that haven't +>> been updated for a new UI element end up using the version of it from +>> the anti-theme. [[plugins/Comments]] and [[plugins/contrib/trail]] +>> both need some tweaks per-theme to make them integrate nicely, +>> but most of the design comes from the anti-theme. +>> +>> That doesn't necessarily mean the anti-theme should be the one used +>> on ikiwiki.info, or used by default in new wikis - from my +>> point of view, it'd be fine for either of those to be actiontabs +>> or something The important thing is to *have* a "blank slate" anti-theme +>> that looks simple but sufficient, as a basis for new styles (either +>> [[themes]], or wikis that want their own unique stylesheet), and derive +>> the other themes from it. --[[smcv]] + +> Ikiwiki's minimal theme is not modern. It's postmodern. I like it for the +> reasons described here. +> " The minimalism sucked you in, it made the web feel like one coherent, +> unified thing, unlike the constellation of corporate edifices occupying +> much of it today." +> +> I see an increasing trend back toward these principles, driven partly +> by limits of eg, smartphone UI. So I certianly won't be changing the +> look of any of my ikiwiki sites, including this one. +> +> `auto.setup` and `auto-blog.setup` could have different defaults, +> or allow a theme to be picked as [Branchable](http://branchable.com/) +> does. Perhaps actiontabs for auto-blog and default for wikis? --[[Joey]] + +---- + +Is it still Joey's opinion that ikiwiki.info should remain using the anti-theme? + +I'd like to make one last, clear petition to move ikiwiki.info to using the actiontabs +theme. Rationale below. + +I wanted to just ask one last time if that was still the case. I've been considering +picking back up my ikiwiki hacking efforts, as well as thinking about my personal use +of ikiwiki, and I was privately pondering on the health of the project. IMHO, it's not +great unfortunately, and we could use more contributors. I feel that the anti-theme on +ikiwiki.info is putting off potential users and thus potential contributors. The +actiontabs theme would be a better "advert" for ikiwiki: a better demonstration of what +you *could* do with it, and I think that's an important function of the site. I think +people might come across ikiwiki.info whilst looking for basic information on the project +and be put off by the anti-theme. + +Honestly, I also find it hard to read information on the site due to the anti-theme (yes, +the default font face and size etc. are my own brower's preferences, but I sometimes use +browsers on other machines that I have not configured), including the wide (lack of) +content margins, and prefer to interact with it (generally) using local clones. +(I've just made *this* edit this way, but actually because the login process via email +seems to be broken for edit/preview workflow. I might investigate/file about that later.) + +I wonder if someone feels the same, since you defaulted to actiontabs on branchable. + +Thanks, [[users/Jon]]. (2017-12-28) + +---- + +9 month ping, does [[Joey]] or [[smcv]] have any kind of opinion on this matter, +subsequent to my last comment? I ask because both of your takes on the issue are from +way back in 2011. — [[Jon]] (2018-09-24) + +---- + +saw this "typesetter CSS" and was reminded of the anti-theme (and my 18 month old appeal to revisit that decision): +[typesetter-css](https://screwtapello.gitlab.io/typesetter-css/example/demo.html): + +> HTML is a semantic markup language, but web-browsers' default presentation of semantic HTML is more based on compatibility with decades-old browsers than with readability. There are browser-addons that will take a page, strip out the presentational markup and try to present the result in a readable format, but that shouldn't be necessary if you've got sensible semantic markup to begin with. +> +> Typesetter.css is a custom stylesheet designed to present generic, semantic HTML in the most readable way possible. + +The readability problems with unstyled HTML that this project talks about are exactly why I think the anti-theme +as default for the main site should be revisited. — [[Jon]] (2019-08-16)