[Zope-dev] Re: [Zope3-dev] Are there Graphic Designers?

[Bill Anderson]

On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 05:41, Paul Everitt wrote:
> 
> I think this conversation is trending in the wrong direction.
> 
> Zope 3 needs to make it possible to build YABB, interfaces which support 
> all browsers while still looking slick, etc.
> 
> However, it is important to note: Zope 3 is *not* a product.  It is used 
> to build products.  The core ZMI is needed to the extent that it helps 
> build or administer products.  Thus, Zope 3 is not like YABB.
> 
> Of course, Zope 3 can ship with one or more sexy sample applications, 
> like YABB.  But if we blur the line for Zope 3's ZMI, we'll be right 
> back into the core problem of Zope 2's ZMI: audience confusion.
> 
> One of the first questions to ask when building an interface is "What is 
> the audience?"  Giving a very focused, tough response can greatly boost 
> effectiveness.
> 
> With all this in mind, I think we can require developers to use 
> standards-compliant browsers, and allow/facilitate them to build 
> backwards-compatible interfaces.

I agree with you Paul.

In fact, I think the backward-compatible argument is less than
appealing. We should be thinking about *forwards* compatible for the
ZMI.


YABB and the ZMI are very different in terms of purpose, from what I can
tell. IMO, the ZMI should follow the standards, and do so strictly.

Further, the ZMI should not include loads of images. When I am using the
ZMI I want responsiveness and functionality, not glamor and prettiness.
Does the UI respond in an intuitive and meaningful way? Does the UI make
me search/scroll for the most commonly used items (i.e. the old ZMI for
adding items was all the way at the bottom, as opposed to the
top-located drop box we now enjoy)? The ZMI is all about functionality.
The UI developers place on their sites, can be about whatever they want
it to be.

One of the factors I had seen addresses on the Roxen management UI was
the use of images. We must remember that not all of us are using
high-speed connections to our servers, Some are still using dial-up.

Facts are that the use of the 4.x browsers are decreasing, and that if
you author for them, your site will be more and more broken in the newer
browsers. There is a difference between authoring *for* them, and
authoring CSS that degrades gracefully. I would prefer we went he second
route.

CSS *can* be used and degrade gracefully, without sniffing browsers or
using Javascript, see http://www.alistapart.com for further details.


-- 
Bill Anderson
Linux in Boise Club                  http://www.libc.org
Amateurs built the Ark, professionals built the Titanic.
Amateurs build Linux, professionals build Windows(tm).