Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Chris Mohler]

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Pat David  wrote:
>> Performance is an issue though. I'm a bit appalled that 4 or 5 seconds
>> for "above the fold" seems to be OK.  But I'm a late intro to this
>> discussion, so maybe I'm off base.
>
>
> 4-5 seconds for above the fold content is _not_ ok.  It's also _not_ normal.
> The example I used above was under load, throttled to a 1mbit/s connection.
> We're under heavy load these past few days, so don't judge the page
> performance right now.  After some slight abatement recently I was seeing
> 1-2 seconds for atf content, and 3-4 seconds for complete page load. ymmv,
> but we haven't even started optimizing things yet.

Glad to hear it ;)

Chris
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Pat David]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:01 PM Chris Mohler  wrote:

>
> Derailer here - asking for a webfont to be loaded is no less or more
> secure than asking for an image to be loaded.  In other words, simply
> loading any web page is probably going to require loading external
> resources to render properly - requesting a web font doesn't install
> it in your system directory or anything.  It's just a one-time deal on
> page load, just like an image.
>

These are my thoughts as well, but still we design for the least capability
first... :)


>
> Performance is an issue though. I'm a bit appalled that 4 or 5 seconds
> for "above the fold" seems to be OK.  But I'm a late intro to this
> discussion, so maybe I'm off base.
>

4-5 seconds for above the fold content is _not_ ok.  It's also _not_
normal.  The example I used above was under load, throttled to a 1mbit/s
connection.  We're under heavy load these past few days, so don't judge the
page performance right now.  After some slight abatement recently I was
seeing 1-2 seconds for atf content, and 3-4 seconds for complete page load.
ymmv, but we haven't even started optimizing things yet.

Soon!
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

Sorry, this was a double post, didn't realize I'd already sent the other 
post on the same topic.


On 11/23/2015 02:13 PM, Elle Stone wrote:

On 11/23/2015 11:06 AM, Pat David wrote:

I have scripting turned off and the top navigation header renders just
fine.  So I cannot replicate this.  Could you please elaborate on what
you are doing to trigger this behavior, and verify that it is correct?


Hmm, until today I never saw the navigation header across the top of the
page.

In one browser today the navigation header on the home page didn't show
up until I reloaded the page. But in all the other browsers all the
pages had the navigation header. So you are right, whatever was causing
the header to not show up, it wasn't a blocked script.


___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Pat David]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 1:05 PM Elle Stone 
wrote:

>
> Javascript and "objects":
>
> Hmm, you might be right about "just disabling javascript" and leaving
> everything else allowed. However, I don't just block javascript when I
> browse the web. Other stuff, including "objects", which includes the
> downloaded fonts, is also blocked.
>

Yes, just disabling javascript will still render icons.  No question about
it.  Those icons are bundled in a font file, no JS required.  Blocking
"objects" and font files will cause them to not render.

I have a note somewhere to consolidate various icons into an SVG
spritesheet, but support is not quite as deep as using a font file.
Haven't decided which may be the best path to follow yet.  I'll start
experimenting with them before long.


>
> I suspect most people running noscript/etc block "objects" as well as
> scripts.
>

Agreed.  Though in that case they aren't seeing icons - functionally
everything is still there and works (it's why I don't use icon-only
navigation schemes - the text + anchors are still there).

If someone is going to purposefully block content (whatever the reason),
then they should expect things to not look as designed (but should still be
functional).  I think we're covering that.


> Nice fonts are nice to see. But downloading fonts and such from another
> location to the user's computer does add to the weight and download
> speed of a page, and as "objects" they are going to be perceived as "not
> good" by security-conscious people.
>

Correct!  See above.  (If you are blocking stuff on purpose, don't be
surprised when it doesn't show up as intended).  Most importantly, the site
works without those fonts (though it maybe ugly).


>
>
> Checking other browsers that aren't using Noscript/etc:
>
> I checked using some other browsers and still don't see the icons.
>
> Here's a screenshot of what I see in four different browsers - top to
> bottom the browsers are Rekonq, Konqueror, Opera, and Firefox:
>
>
> http://ninedegreesbelow.com/bug-reports/gimp-site/rekonq-konqueror-opera-firefox-screenshot.jpg
>
>
I don't understand.  All of the screenshots except for the last one (FF)
show the font icons just fine?  That's what it looks like to me.


>
> As an aside, on my computer the page loading speed is very slow today,
> even considering my "not fast" internet connection. For example, just
> now it took 29 seconds to completely load the GIMP "about" page.
> Sometimes pages actually timed out with Rekonq and Konquerer. As
> reference, other websites don't seem to be taking any longer than normal.
>

Please stop trying to benchmark the live site right now.  The server
connection limits are being stressed by many concurrent downloads at the
moment. Give it a day or two to calm down, then revisit it. (Or test it
locally with appropriate tools).

At the moment, with no optimizations, throttling to 1MB/s and a latency of
about 5ms, all above the fold content loads in about 4 - 4.5 seconds
(including background images).  The DOM content loaded in about 450ms,
final full load was just shy of 10s.

The total front page weight right now is about 1.2MB total.

I'll start optimizing soon, but will not do anything until the downloads
have abated a bit.
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

On 11/23/2015 11:06 AM, Pat David wrote:

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:01 AM Elle Stone
>
wrote:


I stand corrected. There is a header at the top of each page, with
Wilber in the header. But the user must enable scripts to see the
header.

I have scripting turned off and the top navigation header renders just
fine.  So I cannot replicate this. Could you please elaborate on what
you are doing to trigger this behavior, and verify that it is correct?


Hmm, until today I never saw the navigation header on the home page. Has 
it been added recently?


Back when I posted the original comment, I didn't see the navigation 
header on the News page (or any other page), until after I enabled 
scripts. But when I reloaded the page, the navigation header was there, 
which perhaps was caused by reloading the page instead of by enabling 
scripts?


In any event, today the home page and also other pages have a navigation 
header, with or without scripts enabled. Only once, upon first time 
loading the page with the Pale Moon browser (Firefox derivative), there 
was no header across the top. But upon reloading it appeared, even 
though scripting was disabled.


Best,
Elle

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

On 11/23/2015 02:28 PM, Pat David wrote:


If someone is going to purposefully block content (whatever the reason),
then they should expect things to not look as designed (but should still
be functional).  I think we're covering that.


Nice fonts are nice to see. But downloading fonts and such from another
location to the user's computer does add to the weight and download
speed of a page, and as "objects" they are going to be perceived as "not
good" by security-conscious people.


Correct!  See above.  (If you are blocking stuff on purpose, don't be
surprised when it doesn't show up as intended).



Most importantly, the
site works without those fonts (though it maybe ugly).


You are asking people to trust that the GIMP website hasn't been and 
never will be compromised and therefore it's OK to trust whatever 
"stuff" that might be downloaded.




Checking other browsers that aren't using Noscript/etc:

I checked using some other browsers and still don't see the icons.

Here's a screenshot of what I see in four different browsers - top to
bottom the browsers are Rekonq, Konqueror, Opera, and Firefox:


http://ninedegreesbelow.com/bug-reports/gimp-site/rekonq-konqueror-opera-firefox-screenshot.jpg


I don't understand.  All of the screenshots except for the last one (FF)
show the font icons just fine?  That's what it looks like to me.


Well, now I feel silly - other than Wilbur and the download icon, I 
didn't realize that the items beside the other links were icons instead 
of placeholders.


But comparing them more carefully to the Firefox placeholders, yes, they 
do look like icons instead of placeholders.


Maybe the icons could be larger?

Would color instead of just black and white maybe help distinguish the 
various icons, and also help better "brand" the GIMP website from one 
page to the next?


Could the word "GIMP" and also the Wilber icon both be made a bit larger 
and more prominent in the navigation bar?


Points of perspective:

* Not everyone has great eyesight.

* At least on my screen, those icons are small and not very 
differentiated one from the other.


* Properly used, color helps make things more distinguishable, as well 
helps to establish "yes, you are still on the same website".


* A larger Wilbur in the navigation bar would be *very* nice. A more 
prominent placement of the word "GIMP" in the navigation bar, emphasized 
by some appropriate color scheme, also would help.


Best,
Elle

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Liam R. E. Quin]

On Mon, 2015-11-23 at 23:01 -0600, Chris Mohler wrote:
> 
[...]
> Performance is an issue though. I'm a bit appalled that 4 or 5
> seconds for "above the fold" seems to be OK.

It's much faster than that here, and we have a below-average 1.5MBps
connection at home.

Liam



-- 
Liam R. E. Quin 

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

On 11/23/2015 04:50 PM, Pat David wrote:

Hi!

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 2:23 PM Elle Stone
>
wrote:
Well, now I feel silly - other than Wilbur and the download icon, I
didn't realize that the items beside the other links were icons instead
of placeholders.


Don't feel silly - you aren't the first to have this happen to them.
Which leads me to looking sooner at addressing the issue...

Maybe the icons could be larger?

Would color instead of just black and white maybe help distinguish the
various icons, and also help better "brand" the GIMP website from one
page to the next?

Could the word "GIMP" and also the Wilber icon both be made a bit larger
and more prominent in the navigation bar?


I'm fiddling with resizing those icons right now (as well as adding
other icons to balance each link in that header navigation).

If you had a choice, what size seems to work well for you?


I spent some time looking at home pages of websites for several major 
newspapers. I was surprised by the uniformity of the navigation/header 
area at the top:


* The row of navigation links are just word links, no icons.
* There's a large identifying icon, like Wilber is for GIMP, usually 
above and to the left.
* The newspaper name is in larger font usually above the row of links 
but sometimes to one side.


I'm not saying that GIMP's website should match those large commercial 
websites just because they are large commercial websites.


But it *might* be worth experimenting with eliminating the icons from 
the navigation bar, and just using them in the footer navigation. That 
would make the row of links in the header navigation bar less crowded 
and allow room for a larger Wilbur icon.


Reserving the navigation icons for the footer navigation would allow for 
larger icons without making the footer navigation seem crowded.




I can certainly play with color too.  I don't think we have an
"official" color scheme just yet for branding, but I'll see what
everyone else thinks too.


Points of perspective:

* Not everyone has great eyesight.


What do you do on pages that are rendering fonts small?  Everything
_should_ scale ok if you zoom the page in.  (This is not an excuse for
the small icons, just a thought).


On websites that still think 10-12px font sizes are sufficient for 
readability, I zoom in until the text is readable. On websites that 
think there's no such thing as a line of text that's too long, or think 
lines of text don't need any separation, I make the viewport narrower 
and zoom in. On some websites I just give up and disable their styling 
through the browser.


On your redesign of the GIMP website, you already use very nicely sized 
fonts and good line spacing and line lengths, so I don't have to do any 
zooming at all.


Speaking of zooming in and/or making viewports smaller, your home page 
design for the GIMP website very nicely flows and rearranges itself when 
the page is zoomed in and/or resized even to narrow widths.




* At least on my screen, those icons are small and not very
differentiated one from the other.


* Properly used, color helps make things more distinguishable, as well
helps to establish "yes, you are still on the same website".

* A larger Wilbur in the navigation bar would be *very* nice. A more
prominent placement of the word "GIMP" in the navigation bar, emphasized
by some appropriate color scheme, also would help.


Let's see what we can do with fiddling with sizes and colors.  I'm open
to suggestions as well! :)


What color scheme will the GIMP 2.10 release use?

Best,
Elle
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Pat David]

Elle,

On Sat, Nov 21, 2015 at 7:01 AM Elle Stone 
wrote:

>
> I stand corrected. There is a header at the top of each page, with
> Wilber in the header. But the user must enable scripts to see the header.
>
>
I have scripting turned off and the top navigation header renders just
fine.  So I cannot replicate this.  Could you please elaborate on what you
are doing to trigger this behavior, and verify that it is correct?


> This is not good. Users shouldn't be required to enable scripts to see
> the header at the top of the page.
>

They shouldn't, and the pages were designed this way.  So I'd like to fix
this if it's the case.
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

On 11/23/2015 12:06 PM, Pat David wrote:

On Fri, Nov 20, 2015 at 3:18 PM Elle Stone



All pages: The site requires javascript enabled to display the icons at
the bottom of the page. Otherwise, except for the GIMP icon, the icons
are just place-holders.
   Some people consider scripts to be a security risk. Is there
a way
to make the icons at the bottom of the page display without requiring
the user to enable scripts?


The site does NOT requite JS to show the icons in the footer.  You are
likely using an extension to block scripts in your browser (noscript?).
If this is the case, you'll need to examine your settings to understand
what is happening, which is that you're actually blocking the fonts
(which those icons are packaged as).

So yes, you can easily view the icons in the footer without scripts
running (try turning off just javascript and you'll see).


Javascript and "objects":

Hmm, you might be right about "just disabling javascript" and leaving 
everything else allowed. However, I don't just block javascript when I 
browse the web. Other stuff, including "objects", which includes the 
downloaded fonts, is also blocked.


I suspect most people running noscript/etc block "objects" as well as 
scripts.


On older/slower/low-ram computers, blocking "stuff" is not just a 
security issue - it's also just about necessary to be able to browse the 
internet at all.


Nice fonts are nice to see. But downloading fonts and such from another 
location to the user's computer does add to the weight and download 
speed of a page, and as "objects" they are going to be perceived as "not 
good" by security-conscious people.



Checking other browsers that aren't using Noscript/etc:

I checked using some other browsers and still don't see the icons.

Here's a screenshot of what I see in four different browsers - top to 
bottom the browsers are Rekonq, Konqueror, Opera, and Firefox:


http://ninedegreesbelow.com/bug-reports/gimp-site/rekonq-konqueror-opera-firefox-screenshot.jpg

I don't use Rekonq, Konqueror, or Opera except for testing to see how 
websites render. So I'm not sure what settings they are using.


I did check the Rekonq browser preferences. Rekonq was set up to allow 
scripting and was probably more or less "default as set up by KDE". So I 
don't know why the icons and images aren't showing up - the line 
drawing, and the DTP images showed up, but not the image at the top or 
the nice images for the photo editing/painting/etc. Konqueror also 
failed to load some of the images.


As an aside, on my computer the page loading speed is very slow today, 
even considering my "not fast" internet connection. For example, just 
now it took 29 seconds to completely load the GIMP "about" page. 
Sometimes pages actually timed out with Rekonq and Konquerer. As 
reference, other websites don't seem to be taking any longer than normal.


Best,
Elle

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

On 11/23/2015 12:06 PM, Pat David wrote:

We could, but this does rely on CSS animations, which I can't assume
everyone has available (IE8-9 don't for instance).  I can look into
possibly showing something like that, but for now I'm going to keep the
attributions plainly visible for the authors.  Maybe I'll have a look at
styling it slightly different


As a fallback styling, the css "title" attribute is very widely 
supported and displays upon hover.

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Pat David]

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:24 AM Elle Stone 
wrote:

> I would suggest changing whatever it takes to give the "GIMP for DTP"
> section equal or even less than the visual weight and space given to
> using GIMP for editing photographs, digital painting, etc.
>

Noted.
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Pat David]

Yes, I will have a look at it, but honestly feel that it's not so obtrusive
the way it is right now.  I originally had the attribution with the images
themselves, which I may look at redoing again sometime soon.

I may also not want a tooltip popping up with the cursor on hover.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2015 at 11:16 AM Elle Stone 
wrote:

> On 11/23/2015 12:06 PM, Pat David wrote:
> > We could, but this does rely on CSS animations, which I can't assume
> > everyone has available (IE8-9 don't for instance).  I can look into
> > possibly showing something like that, but for now I'm going to keep the
> > attributions plainly visible for the authors.  Maybe I'll have a look at
> > styling it slightly different
>
> As a fallback styling, the css "title" attribute is very widely
> supported and displays upon hover.
>
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

On 11/21/2015 07:44 AM, Elle Stone wrote:


* Wilber is on the new home page, but he's sort of lost against the
background image at the top, and he's missing from the other pages. It
would help with branding if Wilber were prominently visible at the top
of every page.




* There's no "identifying header bar" on the other pages.

* There is no link to the home page from the (nonexistent) identifying
header at the top of the page. Every website needs a link to the home
page from the top of every page - users shouldn't have to scroll to the
bottom to get back to the home page.


I stand corrected. There is a header at the top of each page, with 
Wilber in the header. But the user must enable scripts to see the header.


This is not good. Users shouldn't be required to enable scripts to see 
the header at the top of the page.


Best,
Elle

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Akkana Peck]

Elle Stone writes:
> I stand corrected. There is a header at the top of each page, with Wilber in
> the header. But the user must enable scripts to see the header.

Even with scripts, it's tough to tell that icon is actually Wilber.
It's so small that the eyes aren't identifiable as eyes, and the
"negative space" nose and mouth only make sense if you're already
very familiar with that particular Wilber variant.

> This is not good. Users shouldn't be required to enable scripts to see the
> header at the top of the page.

+1

...Akkana
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

Page loading speed:

Starting from an empty cache, http://static.gimp.org/ takes a slow count 
of four to six seconds before the above-the-fold content finishes 
loading. The picture at the top is the last item to load.


I have a relatively slow internet connection (cable, but not "high speed 
download"). I wonder how long the page takes to load on a modem connection.


It might be worth checking 
https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/insights/ to see if some 
of the bottlenecks can be eliminated.


Best,
Elle

___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

Re: [Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Elle Stone]

Branding:

The new website has a lot going for it. The font is larger and easier to 
read. The website layout seems more spacious. It looks more "modern", if 
that makes sense. I suspect it will be easier to maintain.


But something about the new website has seemed odd to me from the 
beginning. I think the problem is a lack of consistent branding.


The current GIMP website has excellent "branding", meaning the user 
absolutely knows she's on the GIMP website, no matter which page she 
navigates to:


* All the main pages (gimp.org) have the same consistent and distinctive 
color scheme: dark green, gray, and orange.


* All the pages have a recognizable header across the top, which is an 
orange bar with Wilber on the left edge, plus the word "gimp" as an 
image, and on the right side, the words GNU Image Manipulation Program.


* The image in the header bar is a link taking you to the home page. 
This "link to the home page from the header at the top" is something 
every website needs on every page.


* The wiki pages (wiki.gimp.org) have a different, but also consistent 
layout, with Wilber wearing his construction hat prominently featured at 
the top of the right-side column.



It seems to me that the new website could benefit from clearer and more 
consistent branding:


* Wilber is on the new home page, but he's sort of lost against the 
background image at the top, and he's missing from the other pages. It 
would help with branding if Wilber were prominently visible at the top 
of every page.


* There's no consistent color scheme tying the website together. A 
consistent color scheme would help with branding the website.
 On the pages that aren't the home page, putting a darker 
"branding" color outside the center column with the text would make that 
text look a little less lost than it does in the current large expanse 
of surrounding white space. On a small screen, this is less of an issue. 
On a large screen, the pages look a bit unfinished.


* There's no "identifying header bar" on the other pages.

* There is no link to the home page from the (nonexistent) identifying 
header at the top of the page. Every website needs a link to the home 
page from the top of every page - users shouldn't have to scroll to the 
bottom to get back to the home page.


I think readers are fairly sensitive to these kinds of "website 
branding" issues. A clear branding for every page on the GIMP website 
inspires a certain amount of confidence that you really are on the 
official GIMP website (rather than on one of the many websites that 
wants to convince you to download malware).


Best,
Elle


___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list

[Gimp-developer] SGO to WGO Transition

[Pat David]

I'm afk for most of the day today, with sporadic phone connectivity.  I'll
do my best to address any questions.  Anything more complex will have to
wait until the evening here (-06:00UTC).

The new site SGO (http://static.gimp.org) is ready to be migrated whenever
it's needed.  I have also put a simple file as a news post for the 20th
anniversary.  It's a markdown file located in the source at:

/content/news/2015-11-18 20-years-of-gimp.md

If someone (looking at prokoudine) wanted to write an announcement, this is
the file to do it.  If you don't have the build environment up, feel free
to email me the .md file and I'll put it up this evening ahead of a
switchover.

If you _do_ have the environment up to build, then notice that the file has
a "Status: draft" right now.  This will publish the post only in the
/drafts/ directory, and will not include it anywhere else in the site (or
news feeds) until you remove that piece of metadata, or change it to
"Status: published".

If there are any lingering things that need to be addressed (there are),
I'll get to them after we push the new site.  I don't think there's
anything that's a show-stopper at the moment.  If so, please let me know
asap, and I'll try to get it patched up this evening.

Thank you everyone who helped out and gave me (much needed) feedback!
Happy 20th, GIMPers!

pat david
___
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address:gimp-developer-list@gnome.org
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives:   https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list