Hi Alex, 2017-11-14 18:26 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>:
> Hi Carlos, > > You and others are definitely welcome to integrate SemanticUI like you did > for Material Design Lite. > Ok, but as I stated before, if I invest in integrate SemanticUI the proposal would be as I commented before. To get our main set that most people will want to use. MDL was something done to have something with a good looking, but don't want another set that will have their own live separate of the rest and their own list of components, etc... just to set expectations. > > Regarding a more sophisticated option, I first want to see if SVG for > visuals is possible before we build a whole tool chain around it. So, > IMO, you could just use your favorite HTML/CSS/JS editing tools to create > an HTML page or two that have a set of HTMLElement trees whose visuals are > mostly or entirely made up of SVG. Each "tree" is a component like Label, > Button, TextInput, etc. Then you post that and folks can interact with it > and make sure it works correctly on all of the browsers we care about. > Then if you can show you can swap in a wildly different set of SVG (and > maybe some CSS), then we know you have abstracted out a "theme" and then > we can see what needs to be done in the tools to allow someone to specify > a "theme" and swap out the necessary pieces. > Hi Alex, I can use Sketch as I showed before and post in a new thread the SVG and CSS they generated so you can grab that code and experiment with it in supporting it on the framework. Let me know and I'll post it soon. > > In parallel, we would be discussing what other trees/components we need to > have, and also, what default SVG and CSS we want in our theme, and what > the design principles document must contain in order for some other > designer to propose a default look for the next component we end up making. > Right, this can come as a second step. > > That's the way I think of it, but I am not a designer, so I could > I think we can explore that way and see what we found on the on the road :) Thanks > definitely be wrong... > -Alex > > On 11/14/17, 9:09 AM, "carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of Carlos Rovira" > <carlos.rov...@gmail.com on behalf of carlosrov...@apache.org> wrote: > > >Hi Alex, > > > >what you propose would be the more sophisticated option we can do. I could > >invest in that, but I need to work with you, Peter closely to complete > >something. > >I see more probable that I can design each component, at least for a first > >round, but I can't do the infrastructure we need to get SVG on place or > >other things that are more in your skills than mine. > > > >So for me Semantic is something I could try to do and would be something > >that would allow many people to adopt Royale. > >I'll join Alex propose, if Alex, Peter and others team to make this happen > >with some organization and plan behind (defined UI List to complete,...) > > > >We can do both in the same Set: If we create our own set like Alex > >recomend > >with can create an infrastructure that allow us to paint what we want and > >for HTML we can learn on how Semantic does to get minimal and natural > >output, but that will be our own implementation, not Semantic. > > > >I have still some days to dedicate to the website, but as finish that and > >we put website live, I expect to go with this. But I need to know if we > >can > >join forces to make this happen, or if is only me, so I think I should go > >a > >more simple path. > > > > > > > >2017-11-14 17:42 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com.invalid>: > > > >> Maybe we need to pause for a minute to agree on the implementation goals > >> related to our default theme. I was under the impression that an > >> implementation goal was to create a component set where you could "draw" > >> just about any visuals for the components. > >> > >> These other 3rd party themes (Material Design Lite, Flat (Bootstrap) and > >> now Semantic UI) seem to be entirely CSS-based. And that's fine to have > >> component sets that effectively thinly wrap these 3rd-party themes, but > >>I > >> thought we were not only trying to get a default look-and-feel, but make > >> sure you could do lots of it with SVG, so that other users can create > >> their own themes with drawing tools instead of by tweaking CSS borders > >>and > >> background images. > >> > >> Also, in parallel, I think, an implementation goal was to define a > >>visual > >> model either by using Material's models or by developing our own, so > >>that > >> in the future, new components can be added and given a consistent > >> look-and-feel by some other designer. In volunteer-driven Open Source > >> projects like this, we can't count on Carlos doing the design of every > >> component. So it would help to know that, if there is a border in a new > >> component, it should be 1 pixel high with lighting from the top-left, > >>etc. > >> > >> My 2 cents, > >> -Alex > >> > >> On 11/14/17, 8:26 AM, "Peter Ent" <p...@adobe.com.INVALID> wrote: > >> > >> >For things like lists and tables, we have our dataProviders and > >> >itemRenderer factories. Could probably be more streamlined to produce > >>list > >> >and table elements for the itemRenderers. Being able to make a quick > >> >in-line list with some text and buttons ought to be easy and not > >>require a > >> >dataProvider and itemRenderers; those should also be possible, but I > >>think > >> >we should consider having both. > >> > > >> >‹peter > >> > > >> >On 11/14/17, 10:25 AM, "Yishay Weiss" <yishayj...@hotmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> >>One thing that I found problematic with the mdl implementation was > >>that > >> >>there was a feeling of thin wrappers on a blackbox. Whatever default > >> >>theme we choose, I think we should implement it so the core > >>functionality > >> >>is easily understandable to an AS3 programmer with some CSS knowledge. > >> >>That should also help create new good looking components (and themes) > >> >>easier by looking at the existing examples. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>________________________________ > >> >>From: carlos.rov...@gmail.com <carlos.rov...@gmail.com> on behalf of > >> >>Carlos Rovira <carlosrov...@apache.org> > >> >>Sent: Tuesday, November 14, 2017 5:10:21 PM > >> >>To: dev@royale.apache.org > >> >>Subject: About Semantic UI and our UI Set + look-and-feel effort > >> >> > >> >>Hi, > >> >> > >> >>I was looking at Semantic UI and it has most of the things we want to > >>get > >> >>with our UI set + Look and feel effort. > >> >> > >> >>I need to investigate it more, but maybe we don't need to reinvent the > >> >>wheel here. Supposing licenses are ok, we could base the new UI Set > >>to be > >> >>based on Semantic UI or make our own Semantic UI implementation. > >> >> > >> >>Regarding look -and-feel you can get most of the main actual look and > >> >>feels > >> >>out-of-the-box (material, amazon, bootstrap, twitter,...) > >> >> > >> >>The main concepts behind are great as well: > >> >> > >> >>* Use concise and natural HTML > >> >>* Intuitive JS > >> >> > >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > >> https%3A%2F%2Fsemantic > >> >>- > >> >>ui.com&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73 > >> f19d%7Cfa7b1b5a7b344 > >> >>3 > >> >>8794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148&sdata= > >> edLmEIa8vS0VZqKrTdi > >> >>r > >> >>GxZxeAwpHE05ba4wUxKMAbs%3D&reserved=0 > >> >> > >> >>It has already integrations with React, Angular,... > >> >> > >> >>Maybe our potencial is not in this area but in our composition > >>concepts > >> >>and > >> >>this could be integrated. > >> >> > >> >>This would need to make a new UI Set as we did with MDL, but this time > >> >>this > >> >>could be the main UI Set since it could have all we need, different > >>look > >> >>and feels, all controls needed... > >> >> > >> >>We can as well use it to reach 1.0 and from there think if we need to > >> >>create out own. > >> >> > >> >>Another thing to think about it is how this will deal with other > >>outputs > >> >>far beyond javascript (SWF, WebAssembly,...), maybe those outputs will > >> >>need > >> >>to be develop by us > >> >> > >> >>Semantic-UI is under MIT license what I think is compatible with > >>create > >> >>what we need or take parts from here right? > >> >> > >> >>Thoughts? > >> >> > >> >> > >> >>-- > >> >>Carlos Rovira > >> >>https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > >> http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me% > >> >>2 > >> >>Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C51ef41a95ca2499c44e508d52b73 > >> f19d%7Cfa7b1b > >> >>5 > >> >>a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462699328603148& > >> sdata=uofFjlOAiyWX > >> >>A > >> >>GS%2Bk49ieME8QJL7cgxNrlCGwi798ZY%3D&reserved=0 > >> > > >> > >> > > > > > >-- > >Carlos Rovira > >https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url= > http%3A%2F%2Fabout.me%2 > >Fcarlosrovira&data=02%7C01%7C%7C45acb788de594feb6e5308d52b82 > 8c73%7Cfa7b1b5 > >a7b34438794aed2c178decee1%7C0%7C0%7C636462762063546975& > sdata=eGvMWiC06W0Rx > >WxGBc5e7Hi3i9%2Fv4WLtFWlASIswb3g%3D&reserved=0 > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
