Hi Colin, Thanks so much for bringing this back to the top. Glad to hear that FSS is going to get some attention going forward.
I'd be willing to initiate / facilitate the research into 3rd party tools if no one else steps forward. I imagine others will have input on this as well. - Jon. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Colin Clark <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi all, > > There hasn't been any activity on this thread in two months, so I guess we > don't have a huge wave of creative ideas for the future direction of FSS. > > We're planning to significantly refresh and simplify Infusion for version > 2.0, which we will likely release within a year. Now seems like the time to > start deprecating aspects of Infusion that we aren't planning to bring > forward with us. > > Here's my proposal: > > 1. Deprecate the FSS in Infusion 1.5. We'll continue to support it fully > until we have a viable replacement. > 2. Start a research effort to look at third-party CSS tools, selecting one > that we will use in UI Options as well as for our demos > 3. Ship this new third-party tool and any additional supports needed by > Infusion users in version 2.0 > > Thoughts and comments? Is there anyone who is willing take a lead on #2? > > Colin > > --- > Colin Clark > http://fluidproject.org > > On 2013-07-03, at 3:08 PM, Colin Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi Jon and everyone, > > > > On 2013-07-03, at 10:24 AM, Jonathan Hung <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Recently Justin, Heidi, and I have been talking about FSS and we were > wondering if we should continue maintaining FSS or transition to a new > strategy. > > > > Have you considered what the alternative strategies might look like? If > so, could you describe them for us? > > > >> Specifically, it seems that browser standards compliance, third party > CSS frameworks (like Twitter's Bootstrap), and CSS languages (like > Sass/SCSS, or Less) have advanced sufficiently that it could replace FSS. > However, if we make a change to using a CSS framework, this will affect > other Infusion components like UI Options. > > > > Can you elaborate on how these different technologies might serve as a > replacement for FSS? What roles would they play, specifically? We've got > some very diverse tools listed here--Sass is quite different from, say, > Bootstrap, and works at a lower infrastructural level. Can you guys > describe how you imagine we might use these technologies? > > > > Johnny Taylor seems incredibly enthusiastic about Sass, which is a good > sign. > > > >> Conversely, maintaining FSS is complex due to: > >> - the different theme implementations (FSS comes with 10 themes) > > > > My impression is that most of the "demo" themes--rust, mist, etc.--are > long overdue for being deprecated and removed. The themes used by UI > Options, however, are foundational for doing transformation of web > applications. Are you thinking that we'd replace these with something else, > somehow? > > > >> - the FSS CSS itself is like the API (modifications must be done with > consideration to the effect on end users) > > > > I'm not sure I understand what this means. Can you explain? > > > >> - lack of resources to maintain and improve it (some styling methods > used in FSS seem a bit antiquated like using .PNG images to create > different button borders for themes). > > > > Yes, I agree. I've tried to encourage efforts to address these legacy > weaknesses in FSS, but so far no one has been willing to take on the job. > Given that, I'm not averse to simply choosing an existing framework > (Bootstrap, Foundation, or one of the many, many others out there) and > offering it up both for our own development and for our users. > > > >> Do we: > >> 1. maintain status quo (no changes) > > > > I don't think this is a good idea to maintain the status quo for FSS, > but we do need someone who wants to take on and lead a renewal effort. > > > >> 2. explore re-implementing FSS using another framework like Bootstrap > (and keep FSS classnames the same) > > > > I think we will have to consider how to preserve backwards > compatibility, especially for UI Options users who have sprinkled FSS class > names throughout their apps. We could certainly consider streamlining the > class naming conventions we use (they're pretty long), but I think we do > also want to support the use case where people are mixing up framework > classes with their own. Most CSS frameworks that I've encountered tend to > use unprefixed names that will cause conflicts with many existing > stylesheets, which is a shame. > > > >> 3. deprecate FSS > > > > Presumably we still need something to power UI Options, so I'm not sure > if this a viable option. Or am I missing something? > > > > I hope this helps, > > > > Colin > > > > --- > > Colin Clark > > http://fluidproject.org > > _______________________________________________________ > fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] > To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, > see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work > -- *JONATHAN HUNG* INCLUSIVE DESIGNER, IDRC**** ** ** *T:* 416 977 6000 x3951**** *F:* 416 977 9844**** *E:* [email protected]**** ** ** *OCAD UNIVERSITY***** Inclusive Design Research Centre**** 205 Richmond Street W, Toronto, ON, M5V 1V3**** ** ** www.ocadu.ca**** www.idrc.ocad.ca
_______________________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list - [email protected] To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://lists.idrc.ocad.ca/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
