Thanks for all this feedback, everyone. I'm intrigued by Liquid and by Arzumy's detailed work flow.
As it happens, the project I wish to have re-designed contains extensive JQuery in a three column layout. So, I would look to adapt Arzumy's workflow as follows: 1) Send them html and accompanying stylesheets of only those pages with novel div container structure 2) They send back images of their modifications to those 3) I/Client approve 4) They send me html pages and stylesheets 5) I convert html to erb 6) Create new branch call 'design' 7) Let them push/pull only on design branch, I'll keep the branch up to date (merge/rebase/force etc) WRT Robert's valid observation, the design function, whether performed by a person or group, is faithful to the MVC outline if it includes i) .css styling and ii) enforcement of cross-browser standards. Who else should police the view if not the designers? This is why a complete designer -- again consistent with the MVC formulation -- really should be expected to know i) and ii) -- those are view responsibilities. This is precisely where I'm at: I can do everything else, but striking into the appearance and my ii), above, would be new undertakings necessary for the view alone. Lille On Nov 5, 1:44 pm, Arzumy MD <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey guys, > > I work with freelance designers all the time. Here's my standard > workflow. > > 1) Send them wireframes of the pages > 2) They send back mockups in image > 3) I/Client approve > 4) They send me html pages (Stop here if you don't need them to > maintain the html, else proceed to step 5) > 5) I convert html to erb > 6) Create new branch call 'design' > 7) Let them push/pull only on design branch, I'll keep the branch up > to date (merge/rebase/force etc) > > This way they only have to remember limited set of git commands, and > they can't screw up the repo. > Most designers will immediately understand the pattern/logic. > When new pages needed, I just add route/controller and blank view. > They'll treat it like static HTML, then I fill in the logic again. > > I don't worry so much about giving them access to the source. But when > I must, here's what I've done. > > 1-5) as above (all new pages will repeat these steps) > 6) Give the URL to staging > 7) Get then to do live edit (firebug, even better if CSSedit) > 8) Send back new stylesheet (with any image changes) > > A bit more hassle really. But it worked for me in few occasions. > > Cheers! > Arzumy > > On Nov 6, 12:28 am, radhames brito <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Nov 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM,Lille<[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I've written all my view templates in erb, but now I need to convert > > > them to straight html so that designers can work with them. How do I > > > do this? > > > If you want to give your designer a bit of freadom without them needing to > > know erb/ruby use liquid > > >http://www.liquidmarkup.org/ > > > check what it is in this screencast > > >http://railscasts.com/episodes/118-liquid > > > basically is > > > "Ruby library for rendering safe templates which cannot affect the security > > of the server they are rendered on." > > > and looks like this > > > <ul id="products"> > > {% for product in products %} > > <li> > > <h2>{{product.title}}</h2> > > Only {{product.price | format_as_money }} > > > <p>{{product.description | prettyprint | truncate: 200 }}</p> > > > </li> > > {% endfor %} > > </ul> > > > With this you can define a small set of variables or methods that they can > > access and so you can give them a small "dictionary" telling them for > > example that inthe product page they can use a variable called product that > > has x attributes. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ruby on Rails: Talk" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/rubyonrails-talk?hl=en.
