On Tuesday 19 October 2010 03:47:29 Ian Clarke wrote: > On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 3:51 PM, Florent Daigniere < > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I don't want to go on the specifics of GWT but I'd like to make the point > > that it's not a > > new framework that we need, it's designers... > > > > Its both, and if we can't find designers, then a framework that makes life > as easy as possible for non-designers to create something decent is a good > fallback option. GWT meets those criteria because it offers relatively > high-level primitives, whereas with Wicket you're still hacking XHTML.
I am skeptical that the markup language is the basic problem here. Certainly it is possible to build good designs with CSS and HTML - once you have decided what they should look like. > > I've seen people making ugly and non-accessible web interfaces with ALL the > > major > > frameworks out there. IMHO the current problem is not a framework problem. > > Certainly not *just* a framework problem. Its a design that has grown > organically from the back-end forward, rather than from the users backward. > It basically wasn't designed at all. Exactly the point me and nextgens are making: We need a design, then we can implement it with whatever tools seem most appropriate. > > In any software project specification involving a GUI, there's a phase where > > people specify > > WHAT they want to see on the interface and WHERE it should be. It's usually > > done > > with mockups all the parties involved comment on. This is what we should > > do/agree > > on first. It doesn't require a framework or anything. People contributing > > to it > > can do so the way they feel like (writing text, sending pictures, ...). > > THEN, it's up to the developpers to chose the appropriate tool to do the > > job. > > I agree that the priority for now is to get some mockups, and the choice of > framework is a parallel conversation. We don't need to wait for us to > select a framework (or not) to get some conversation going around mockups. > That being said, I don't think we need to wait for the mockups to discuss > frameworks either, they are parallel conversations. > > > I do agree that the current web-framework we use has its limitations... but > > I don't > > think that switching to something else would be worth it. It would be a > > massive job > > and I think that the development time would be better invested elsewhere. > > It has to happen sooner or later, and I think the UI needs a ground-up > rewrite regardless of whether we switch frameworks now or later, so it seems > like if we are going to switch frameworks, its best to to both together. Depends who does the work I guess. > > > I am convinced that whichever UI we agree on, it can be implemented > > regardless of the framework > > ... and that choosing a framework is up to the guy implementing it! > > I mostly agree, if someone came to us and credibly said that they would > redesign our UI, but they had to use Wicket/Play/GWT/or any other vaguely > reasonable choice, I think it would be hard to argue against letting them do > it. > > If I was that person I'd pick GWT, but I'm not - that is just the option > that I think would make life easiest for them. Dieppe, any input?
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
