[Zope3-dev] Are there Graphic Designers?

[Gary Poster]

From: "Matt Behrens" <matt@zigg.com>
To: <garyposter@earthlink.net>; "Jeff Kowalczyk" <jtk@adelphia.net>;
<zope3-dev@zope.org>
> > Same idea as Casey's email.  I'll summarize and say +1.
>
> What?  You're the one advocating Flash.

Obviously I think my opinions are consistent, and that I've explained them
logically.  I'll try once more, then stop.

> I'm right with Jeff, and I'm reading that he's saying the same thing I
> am.  Lean and mean, no fluff.  Minimizes load times, maximizes
> compatibility.

What is your suggestion on how to proceed with the tree browser?  I feel it
is a necessary UI element, not least because it is a connection to Zope2
usage.  I am not advocating Flash because I love it: I am advocating it
because I think it is the best solution to the problem.  It is both lean and
mean: the Flash app is cached, and the xml snippets can even be cached, and
even a whole darn object tree can be cached in MX.  I don't love Flash: it's
just one of the things I teach.  So I know it, and its capabilities.

If you tell me a better solution to the tree browser I will be behind it
100%.  I *am* after lean and mean, as well as usable.  Please tell me a
better approach.

> Bottom line is that everyone has their own little pet thing they want to
> put in to ZopeTop, something they've found useful, attractive, etc. in
> their own work.  That's great, but the audience of ZopeTop is NOT the
> same audience as a site whose goal is marketing.

Agreed.  Do you put the file tree in the category of "pet thing"?  I guess I
would have to disagree with you there.  It is *the* consistent nod to
usability in the Zope interface: tabs are the next most consistent.
Otherwise, agreed.

> If ZopeTop is rendered unusable on any browser I may happen to have
> where I (site manager) am when I need to make a change, it has become
> less useful to me.  Examples of being rendered unusable do not end with
> unclickable links or garbled display.  They also include not being able
> to gracefully deal with bandwidth constraints, or slowing me way down
> because of complex code that tries to do something unnecessary twelve
> different ways because it doesn't know why browser it's on.

Turn off css then, if you are referring to my suggestion that we have a css
browser sniffer.  The browser sniffer would be on the css object, not on the
content object you want to view.  You may notice that I recommended that the
XHTML be usable completely without css.  This is completely doable.  You
could look at the site in lynx and do just fine.

And I recommend Flash over JS because of the same logic you give:
JS/DHTML/DOM games require significant browser sniffing, while Flash has
fairly simple sniffing needs and can be turned on and off with a simple
cookie, if desired.

Again, tell me a better solution and I'll follow.

> No matter where I am, if I have a browser, I want to be able to fly
> through ZopeTop to get where I have to go, do what I have to do, and
> leave.  Don't slow either my bandwidth or my processor down with complex
> code.  Don't make me look at things that are unnecessary for usability.

Again, agreed.  I knew I'd be letting loose the dogs of war by mentioning
Flash, but I am in *complete* agreement with your goals.  I mention the
Flash and CSS because I believe they are the best ways to achieve those
goals--in this case, they would be good for usability.

Caching is a good thing.  Being able to turn off css and flash if you don't
want it is a good thing.  Separating content and presentation even in your
pages (i.e. XHTML and CSS) is a good thing.

If you cannot see how I reconcile these positions, then I guess I'll stop.
I think these are topics worth discussing, though, so if you at least see
where I am coming from and have an answer to the problems I've raised, I'll
be happy to continue.  I have no desire to further defend Flash, nor my
general opinion that you should use the best tool for the job.

Gary