RE: [development] Drupal 5.0 Theme - v2
The big blue bar on top does nothing for the theme except push down the title bar and drown the rest of the site. No matter how I try I can't look away. As I try and look down the page, my eye is constantly drawn to the big huge empty dominating color bar on top -sepeck ________________________________ From: development-bounces@drupal.org [mailto:development-bounces@drupal.org] On Behalf Of Trae McCombs Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 6:22 PM To: development@drupal.org Subject: [development] Drupal 5.0 Theme - v2 First things first, Farsheed has done OUTSTANDING work on trying to incorporate a whole bunch of peoples ideas of what should or shouldn't be in the theme. Below isn't meant to be "open for discussion" per se. It is My Take[tm] on the direction I think the theme should go. If Dries likes it, cool, I hope everyone does too, but I know there will be those who absolutely hate my proposal. My "code" is based off of the 14.zip version that Farsheed put up. I still feel he's the best person to pull these changes together once everything is all settled, I hope I've not made too much of a mess for him. ;) I don't know how to use diff and all that stuff as he does. I just make things pretty[tm]. "My" Theme: http://themes.net/ WHILE you look at the theme above, keep in mind I've only worked on the Fixed version. That isn't to say that I won't work on the fluid version too. Also note that It is NOT a finished version. Below are the tweaks I want to implement of which I feel will push this theme over the edge and make it worth of Drupal 5.0 default theme: * Rounded Corners Yes, we love them don't we? I would like to have rounded corners on the following areas [current colors kept in tact]. 1. Search area 2. Mission 3. Footer If you have Inkscape [ http://inkscape.org ] create a rectangle and click the rectangle select and set Rx and Ry to either 8 or 13. Those are the corner radii I'm thinking of using. I know how to implement a "pure html" way to do rounded corners with no images { as can be seen on my bands site -- yes, it's crappy looking -- http://theinterference.com/ } But wanted to discuss this implementation with maybe Ted, Farsheed, others as to what would be the best way technically to implement the rounded corners. My way I think is smooth and clean, and works on all browsers, but does put a lot of extra mark-up. Do we want that much extra mark-up going into a core theme? * Search bar and Footer bar Texture... these areas will have a nice clean texture in the background (of course, depending on the method we use for rounded corners) But the texture will really make those areas pop. I'll work on this tomorrow. I might simply repeat the "Glassy" feel from the Primary links to those areas. * Secondary Links I'd say we should have a place for Secondary links built into the top search bar, much like the Primary links. These are probably just small font links left aligned. * Logo on Right Not sure which logo to use... There are several Drupal Icon's laying around and wanted to know which is the "official one". This could tie into the "change the logo" discussion we had earlier. Would be nice to at least get the ability to change the logo easily with AJAX goodness into Drupal 5.0 That's about it... If everyone hates this and loves Farsheeds better, my feelings won't be hurt. I figured I'd spend some time, and put up instead of shutting up. :) The way that Farsheeds theme worked, still works, 2col(l/r) and 3col as is displayed. Again, I haven't touched fluid, so I'd have to go back in and fix those things. I can dedicate the rest of this week to this project should everyone (read: Dries) approve of my work thus far, and possibly a wee bit more time after that. Peace love and Bananas, Trae "The Artist Formerly Known as Occy" PS. I hope I didn't forget anything that should have gone in this PS area. :) -- Trae McCombs || http://occy.net/ Founder - Themes.org // Linux.com
On Sep 27, 2006, at 7:45 PM, Steven Peck wrote:
The big blue bar on top does nothing for the theme except push down the title bar and drown the rest of the site. No matter how I try I can't look away. As I try and look down the page, my eye is constantly drawn to the big huge empty dominating color bar on top.
<design-by-committee> i totally agree w/ steven. on a full-height window on my 15" powerbook, nearly the top 1/4 of the screen is taken up by navigational cruft that could easily fit into 1/8th of the screen instead (if not less). there's *tons* of wasted screen real estate here. you end up with an amazingly low % of the screen that contains any content. edward tufte[1] would (rightfully) go to town on this theme (and many others in drupal-land) about how ineffective it is at presenting any useful info to the user of the site. we're writing a content management system, after all, the content should be the most important part... others will probably scream that i should take my minimalist, tufte- compliant theme ideas and a) go to hell and b) stay away from the default core theme which has to "look slick". i disagree. just because it looks slick doesn't mean you have to water down the screen with pixels that add no information, or lots of empty space... if i had the first clue about writing a theme[2], and if i wasn't so damn busy on other things, i'd write my own theme that a) looks good and b) gives you access to your content, not tons of navigational cruft and other things eating up the majority of the screen and screaming for your undeserved attention. </design-by-committee> no offense to trae or farsheed -- much thanks for all the work they've already put into this. and, no offense to anyone else who's really into the tons-of-pixels-that-convey-no-information approach to themes. i just wish more of the theme/design folks around here would drink from the tufte kool-aid. ;) -derek [1] http://edwardtufte.com (no, i don't think his site is The Best (tm) possible site, and that's not what i mean by a "tufte-compliant theme", though he sure packs a ton of useful info, graphics and links onto each square cm of the page. it's more about taking his ideas about visuallly displaying data and applying those to a drupal theme, not writing a theme to duplicate the look/feel of his site). [2] i'm hoping to attend the lullabot theme workshop in SF next week to work on this deficiency of mine.
On Thursday 28 September 2006 03:54, Derek Wright wrote:
i totally agree w/ steven. on a full-height window on my 15" powerbook, nearly the top 1/4 of the screen is taken up by navigational cruft that could easily fit into 1/8th of the screen instead (if not less). there's *tons* of wasted screen real estate here.
First, thanks *very* much to those who are putting so much work into theme design. I'm a decent coder, but I stink at graphic arts, so your efforts are deeply appreciated here! Constructively speaking, I agree with Derek that there needs to be less white space and other non-essentials at the top of the page. This is especially true since laptops and monitors seem to be headed toward a wide-screen format to support multimedia. Even traditional screens are wider than they are tall, so vertical space is at a premium. I like both Farsheed's and Trae's work but do think that leaner-is-better for most design decisions in a *default* theme. For non-default themes, other considerations may override this. Syscrusher -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Syscrusher (Scott Courtney) Drupal page: http://drupal.org/user/9184 syscrusher at 4th dot com Home page: http://4th.com/
On Thursday 28 September 2006 11:15, Syscrusher wrote:
Constructively speaking, I agree with Derek that there needs to be less white space and other non-essentials at the top of the page.
With regard to Trae's later comment that "we live in a 1024 pixel world", I totally agree with that statement. However, my screen is 1400x1050, and I viewed the demo site with a browser at essentially full screen height, and my comment still stands. Too much white space at the top. :-) Syscrusher -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Syscrusher (Scott Courtney) Drupal page: http://drupal.org/user/9184 syscrusher at 4th dot com Home page: http://4th.com/
"Syscrusher" wrote:
With regard to Trae's later comment that "we live in a 1024 pixel world", I totally agree with that statement.
We do not live in such a world. We live in a world where information is conveyed through a number of human senses. Vision -- and the viewing portal through which that vision is transacted -- is only one of these senses. There are no dimensional constraints even on that portion of "our world" where information is conveyed visually. Perhaps a more supportable statement would be: "We live in a world where, when information is conveyed visually through a desktop web browser, the majority of those viewing are doing so through a portal of approximately X by Y pixels." Remember that the "world" we "live" in (information-wise) is a very diverse world -- much like the real one. I view many web sites through a very tiny viewing portal, held in the palm of my hand. All the fuss over "dimensions" using the non-standard "pixel" is wasted. Templates should provide -- in every case -- a minimum of dimensional concern. The template should allow information to flow into the space -- whatever that space's dimensions -- provided by the view port. And, this does not even begin to address the significant portion of our world that is not visual at all -- like text readers, RSS language readers, web-to-braille conversion, text-to-sound file tools, languages and writing direction and so on. Just a bit of perspective (a visual term?) and a suggestion that _any_ default template system be visually collapsible and wholly able to be utilized across a variety of sense media. -- inkfree
On Thursday 28 September 2006 12:09, inkfree press wrote:
"Syscrusher" wrote:
With regard to Trae's later comment that "we live in a 1024 pixel world", I totally agree with that statement.
We do not live in such a world. We live in a world where information is conveyed through a number of human senses. Vision -- and the viewing portal through which that vision is transacted -- is only one of these senses. There are no dimensional constraints even on that portion of "our world" where information is conveyed visually.
Okay, point taken. I meant "I agree with the implication that most desktop web browsers are using screens of >= 1024 pixels". I hadn't intended to start a thread on general philosophy of what it is to be human, but was thinking "world" within the narrow context of the previous discussion. Apologies for that. I still say there is too much whitespace at the top of the page, even on my high-res screen. It would be even more so on inkree's "very tiny viewing portal, held in the palm of [the] hand." Syscrusher -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Syscrusher (Scott Courtney) Drupal page: http://drupal.org/user/9184 syscrusher at 4th dot com Home page: http://4th.com/
<joke> If all he sees on his tiny viewport is the search block, then I've gotten him to the most important thing right off the bat! </joke> Seriously, as I said, perhaps we could do secondary links in there, or maybe even the Drupal Logo {or some logo} Much in the way that digg.com does. On 9/28/06, Syscrusher <syscrusher@4th.com> wrote:
On Thursday 28 September 2006 12:09, inkfree press wrote:
"Syscrusher" wrote:
With regard to Trae's later comment that "we live in a 1024 pixel world", I totally agree with that statement.
We do not live in such a world. We live in a world where information is conveyed through a number of human senses. Vision -- and the viewing portal through which that vision is transacted -- is only one of these senses. There are no dimensional constraints even on that portion of "our world" where information is conveyed visually.
Okay, point taken. I meant "I agree with the implication that most desktop web browsers are using screens of >= 1024 pixels". I hadn't intended to start a thread on general philosophy of what it is to be human, but was thinking "world" within the narrow context of the previous discussion. Apologies for that.
I still say there is too much whitespace at the top of the page, even on my high-res screen. It would be even more so on inkree's "very tiny viewing portal, held in the palm of [the] hand."
Syscrusher
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Syscrusher (Scott Courtney) Drupal page: http://drupal.org/user/9184 syscrusher at 4th dot com Home page: http://4th.com/
-- Trae McCombs || http://occy.net/ Founder - Themes.org // Linux.com
"Trae McCombs" wrote:
<joke> If all he sees on his tiny viewport is the search block, then I've gotten him to the most important thing right off the bat! </joke>
Well, that's not a bad fall-back, if the site dictates that kind of UI. For example, if the Drupal site were a word bank (acronym finder, dictionary, etc.) or some other search interface, then -- yes. It would be wholly appropriate to have the _visual_ UI be a search box. I'm for it in that case. And your joke is well-taken. It _is_ a big question of _what_ to cause to be visually displayed in a small (even very small) view of a web site. Each site has a different kind of answer to that question. As an exercise, one could take the Drupal.org web site and ask: What would I want to appear at the top of a downward linear, all-text display on a palm-sized device? Consider that the default template is 'blue marine', and then go from there. It's a very good question for _any_ template design (and design_er_) and is very much on-topic, I think.
Seriously, as I said, perhaps we could do secondary links in there, or maybe even the Drupal Logo {or some logo}
Well, this answer points to at least _part_ of the problem. You seem to be saying: Okay, I've got this block of space... now let me see what I should put there. Architects do not build buildings, with rooms, and then decide what kind of room this one or that should be. (Yes, some rooms can be designed as flexible, anything-goes rooms, even with modular wall systems to turn one room into several. But, that is the purpose and intent in that case.) Good design can be visually appealing but it's prime goal is to ease the transaction of information. (It's the difference between the "design arts" and the "creative arts", where the later need not give consideration to any function other than the actual transaction...which may be purposeful hard and not easy at all.) Anyway, the suggestion that you put forward, to me, really suggests that the process is all askew and that the design (especially the wasted top) really suffers for it. It's a nice blue. It's just not fluid and therefore not very useful or friendly in most web contexts. I think folks should remember: This is the __default__ template. It should, therefore, be really solid, 100% viewable on many kinds of view ports, and it should represent __the best__ in design qualities and not the lowest common denominator. The only design qualities that, IMO, should be paramount are: _no_ color locking (use color sets as separate choice) _100% fluid layout_ viewable in any width (column # as choice) _no_ artwork (use artwork sets as a separate choice) Everything in parentheses is "theme" (think "thematic") and everything else is "template" (think "mechanical structure", "framework"). Any template -- especially and certainly the DEFAULT template -- should be rock-solid and practically devoid of all but the most essential "art". Then, it should have a number of "themes" ("skins", if you prefer) which can be draped over it. Anyway...you are right, Syscrusher, that there is more than a little philosophy of life in the broader discussion. As for this particular template, well, it's a generally appealing visual color palette and it's at least not cluttered, so that the "default human" might have a pretty good chance of getting started. (This may be the only person ever to _see_ this template in action, as they make changes and so on to their Drupal site. So...that's even more reason to keep it generic and neutral.) -- inkfree
Why do you want to have one theme for each device? If you would serve *viewable* pages to small devices (for example: handheld) you could make a separate style with media="handheld". Same with "print".
"Stefan Borchert" wrote:
Why do you want to have one theme for each device?
Who is "you", in this usage? I didn't read that anyone said such, but maybe I missed some stuff in the thread (which is a pretty good one, I think, on lots of fronts...even if it strays a bit here or there from the exact mechanics of this new blue zen thingy.) Anyway, I don't think a "theme for each device" is a valid suggestion -- but perhaps you meant "template" instead, which would be more appropriate. (Yes, I think calling Drupal themes "themes" is the wrong usage of the word. A "theme" is a specific kind of "skin". It is a thematic set of elements, like, for example, a "Spring" theme or any kind of "holiday" theme, or a "kids at school" theme. A "template" is more like a cookie cutter, or a framework over which one should be able to apply a "theme". Not worth quibbling over, I suppose, but it is a kind of growing problem when talking about such things.) -- inkfree
inkfree press schrieb:
"Stefan Borchert" wrote:
Why do you want to have one theme for each device?
Who is "you", in this usage?
I didn't read that anyone said such, but maybe I missed some stuff in the thread (which is a pretty good one, I think, on lots of fronts...even if it strays a bit here or there from the exact mechanics of this new blue zen thingy.)
Oh, sorry. Then I misread something. It was a general presumption because of the last postings I read.
Anyway, I don't think a "theme for each device" is a valid suggestion -- but perhaps you meant "template" instead, which would be more appropriate. Yup, I meant only the styles. Sorry for the misunderstanding.
greetings, Stefan
With regard to Trae's later comment that "we live in a 1024 pixel world", I
Personally, it amazes me that he considers himself a "I must step in to fix all this and not listen to design-by-commitee" designer, but then focuses on a fixed-width theme, cares only about 1024 resolutions and higher, and commits the egregious sin of the search box at the header (of which I echo all the sentiment we've already heard). Granted, I'm not a mastah of /design/, but I certainly know what I'm looking for IN a design, in regards to both look and accessibility. And "we live in a 1024 pixel world" is certainly not a phrase I'd want to hear from someone building something intended as a default. Likewise, his argument of:
Name a single high-profile website: slashdot.org, digg.com, newsvine.com, others any of these that doesn't waste the top 300px+ of their site with ads or other stuff. You simply won't find it.
is quite inane. It incorrectly assumes that /sites which intend to make money by capturing eyeballs/ will /use the default theme of Drupal/. This is almost never the case, not for any site that plans to actually succeed (I challenge you to find a bluemarine site that has ads and has been heard of by, oh, I dunno, more than two people). The placement of ads at the top has /nothing/ to do with resolution, and EVERYTHING to do with eye movement and tracking, as indicated by the typical "Z" formating that an eye makes (which is why nearly all site logos are in the left hand corner, then followed horizontally by ads). Ads are in the top space not because of resolution but because they are the /first thing that people see/. This search header has /an awful lot of nothing to see/ and it is, indeed, wasted space. [1] And I've already added my concerns about rounded corners causing the DOM to become hideous with div's that do nothing. Isn't one of berkes oft-echoed concerns that we have div's for div's sake? Here's some more on the flippin' bar-b. -- Morbus Iff ( and think about the bad things that I didn't do ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
On 9/28/06, Morbus Iff <morbus@disobey.com> wrote:
With regard to Trae's later comment that "we live in a 1024 pixel world", I
Personally, it amazes me that he considers himself a "I must step in to fix all this and not listen to design-by-commitee" designer, but then focuses on a fixed-width theme, cares only about 1024 resolutions and higher, and commits the egregious sin of the search box at the header (of which I echo all the sentiment we've already heard).
Congratulations Trae ... you just got Morbused ... ;-)
Heh, Listening to Developers go on and on about what they think is good or bad design is about like the local "Burger King Burger Klub" coming to a 5 star restaurant and saying "This is crappy food, where is my Triple stack cheeseburger?" It all comes back to what I said in the very beginning. We all have different tastes. We all like different things. Trying to satisfy everyone isn't going to work. If I had my pick on features, and the #1 goal that Drupal should have going forward, it would be a "Upgrade button" inside of the Drupal Admin area. Whereby it periodically checked for updates and installed and reconsiled any differences for you automagically. (Or even offered to upgrade things for you automatically without Human Intervention). I've got about 50 websites out there and it's a pain for me to upgrade them. My point is... what I think is important, isn't necessarily what Dries or Steven or anyone else thinks is important. Same goes for Design. PLB. me On 9/28/06, Khalid B <kb@2bits.com> wrote:
On 9/28/06, Morbus Iff <morbus@disobey.com> wrote:
With regard to Trae's later comment that "we live in a 1024 pixel world", I
Personally, it amazes me that he considers himself a "I must step in to fix all this and not listen to design-by-commitee" designer, but then focuses on a fixed-width theme, cares only about 1024 resolutions and higher, and commits the egregious sin of the search box at the header (of which I echo all the sentiment we've already heard).
Congratulations Trae ... you just got Morbused ... ;-)
-- Trae McCombs || http://occy.net/ Founder - Themes.org // Linux.com
Name a single high-profile website: slashdot.org, digg.com, newsvine.com, others any of these that doesn't waste the top 300px+ of their site with ads or other stuff. You simply won't find it.
is quite inane. It incorrectly assumes that /sites which intend to make money by capturing eyeballs/ will /use the default theme of Drupal/. This is almost never the case, not for any site that plans to actually succeed (I challenge you to find a bluemarine site that has ads and has been heard of by, oh, I dunno, more than two people).
And, because I felt bad for answering your challenge with one of my own, I'll respond. These are sites whose headers: * do more than one thing * are not filled with ads. * are not ignorable. http://www.amazon.com/ http://www.ebay.com/ http://www.ibm.com/ http://www.apple.com/ None of these sites have ads in their header space. Most of them do it well within the 300px height you claim as non-worrisome. With the exception of IBM and Apple, I submit that all are more popular than the ones you've listed. However, I think this is a bad direction to be heading in. We will /always/ find a site that agrees with our argument whilst disproving the other one. I'm quite sure that's not a road we want to go down. -- Morbus Iff ( sleep breeds sanity ) Technical: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
Steven Peck wrote:
The big blue bar on top does nothing for the theme except push down the title bar and drown the rest of the site. No matter how I try I can't look away. As I try and look down the page, my eye is constantly drawn to the big huge empty dominating color bar on top
I agree. Themes.net is definitely better, but i still don't like the contrast. The whole theme is too pale. See these: http://benofskypark.com/news/files/pic1.png http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/drupal/contributions/themes/arcmate... I know, these are black, you cannot compare, but they are soooooo contrast. I like the contrast, it's modern, it's usable, it's so pleasant, "alive". Maybe add more contrast to the <h1> logo and submit buttons would be enough? Jakub
I also think the arcmateria theme you're pointing looks really neat (not too keen on the bubbles, though). It would provide a great start for another zenified 5.0 core theme. After all, we do need more than one new theme, don't we ? Merely suggesting - I won't be able to do it myself... yched Jakub Suchy a ecrit le 28/09/2006 09:58:
Steven Peck wrote:
The big blue bar on top does nothing for the theme except push down the title bar and drown the rest of the site. No matter how I try I can't look away. As I try and look down the page, my eye is constantly drawn to the big huge empty dominating color bar on top
I agree. Themes.net is definitely better, but i still don't like the contrast. The whole theme is too pale. See these: http://benofskypark.com/news/files/pic1.png http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/drupal/contributions/themes/arcmate...
I know, these are black, you cannot compare, but they are soooooo contrast. I like the contrast, it's modern, it's usable, it's so pleasant, "alive". Maybe add more contrast to the <h1> logo and submit buttons would be enough?
Jakub
"Jakub Suchy" wrote:
See these: http://benofskypark.com/news/files/pic1.png http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/drupal/contributions/themes/arcmate... a/screenshot_large.png
Blech! These are just awful, IMO. I do agree with the observation that the current theme under discussion [the blue zen thingy...can't we stop calling things 'Zen', already?] wastes too much space. The big blue bar, as pointed out by others, is just too big and serves no purpose that I can determine -- it's not graphically interesting, nothing appears there except the search bar, and it looks like some kind of cheesy graphic downloaded from a viral 'web banners' site. It's better, I think, to just leave a CSS-colored bar at top, if that is an insistence of the template's designers. -- inkfree
inkfree press wrote:
"Jakub Suchy" wrote:
See these: http://benofskypark.com/news/files/pic1.png http://cvs.drupal.org/viewcvs/*checkout*/drupal/contributions/themes/arcmate... a/screenshot_large.png
I don't say i like them (however, i like arcmateria pretty much), i am just pointing out their contrast. Btw. the new footer gradient is very nice, good work Trae. Jakub
participants (10)
-
Derek Wright -
inkfree press -
Jakub Suchy -
Khalid B -
Morbus Iff -
Stefan Borchert -
Steven Peck -
Syscrusher -
Trae McCombs -
Yves CHEDEMOIS