Adrian Hungate writes:
... ZMI critiques ...
Personally I
love the ZMI in the current versions. I have also found there is a
negligable learning curve for users who already know how to use Windows
Explorer and similar products. I just don't see the need to throw out the
ZMI - Are we
On Sat, Apr 06, 2002 at 10:52:27AM +0100, Adrian Hungate wrote:
My question is this: Everyone is saying The ZMI is bad, it's confusing,
users don't like it.
Which everyone? Not me.
Could anyone show me evidence of this? Personally I
love the ZMI in the current versions. I have also found
From: Gary Poster [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that
we ought to trash frames
we ought to use strict xhtml 1.0
we ought to rely on CSS for all graphic elements
(correlative) we ought to not use *any* shims or non-logical tables
the site ought to work completely without JS or Flash
From: William Trenker [EMAIL PROTECTED]
One design consideration is how much to rely on CSS. Looking under the
hood (ie, viewing the source) for some of these slick designs reveals
modest to sophisticated dependence on CSS. But I think the days of
worrying how it's going to look on Netscape
I have been working with Plone now for a couple of days. I think your
suggestion is an excellent one. It has very crisp/clean lines ... excellent
implementation...
I propose to base the Zope3 ZMI on the Plone CMF skin (designed primarily
by
the talented Alexander Limi and Vidar Andersen with
I think this conversation is trending in the wrong direction.
Zope 3 needs to make it possible to build YABB, interfaces which support
all browsers while still looking slick, etc.
However, it is important to note: Zope 3 is *not* a product. It is used
to build products. The core ZMI is
as a data point, here is browser data for one of the sites i own. the data
is produced by webalizer. NS4 is becoming negligible::
Top 25 of 73 Total User Agents
# HitsUser Agent
1 47194 81.46% Micro$haft Internet Exploder
2 16780 28.96% MSIE 6.0
3 16273
On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 12:41, Paul Everitt wrote:
However, it is important to note: Zope 3 is *not* a product. It is used
to build products. The core ZMI is needed to the extent that it helps
build or administer products. Thus, Zope 3 is not like YABB.
[snip]
With all this in mind, I
mac OS X browsers:
- IE 5.1
- mozilla 0.99 (=1.0)
i won't include OmniWeb because its CSS support is still flaky.
jens
On Friday, April 5, 2002, at 04:04 , Dan Pierson wrote:
On Fri, 2002-04-05 at 12:41, Paul Everitt wrote:
However, it is important to note: Zope 3 is *not* a product. It
On 05 Apr 2002 09:04:15 +, Dan Pierson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I agree. IMHO the browser compatibility requirements for the new ZMI
should be summarized as:
Current IE
Mozilla 1.0
Konqueror (KDE 3.0 version)
...what's the current state of Mac browsers...
That
Jens Vagelpohl writes:
mac OS X browsers:
- IE 5.1
- mozilla 0.99 (=1.0)
i won't include OmniWeb because its CSS support is still flaky.
Whether a browser should be included depends on what portion of the
audience uses it, not how broken it may be. I don't see it listed in
the
Folks, can we please stop the zope-dev/zope3-dev crossposts and direct this
thread to zope3-dev only? You're doubling the volume of posts I have to
read. :) Thanks.
___
Zope-Dev maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree 100% with Toby. I don't care how it looks in NS4 or (insert old
non-standard browser here), so long as the functionality is still there.
I think the ZMI should also work 100% with w3m. If we do that, then we
are basically already taking care or accessibility.
I also vote to kill
I almost 100% agree with Casey--and hallelujah for him writing it, because
that means I don't have to. ;-)
I agree that
we ought to trash frames
we ought to use strict xhtml 1.0
we ought to rely on CSS for all graphic elements
(correlative) we ought to not use *any* shims or non-logical
JV == Jens Vagelpohl [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
JV as a data point, here is browser data for one of the sites i
JV own. the data is produced by webalizer. NS4 is becoming
JV negligible::
PE == Paul Everitt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
PE However, it is important to note: Zope 3
Jens Vagelpohl wrote:
as a data point, here is browser data for one of the sites i own. the data
is produced by webalizer. NS4 is becoming negligible::
IMHO it simply has to pass the w3c html and css validators at
http://validator.w3.org/
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
BTW: my Browser
Hi, Alexander Limi here, I am responsible for Plone's design and XHTML/CSS.
I just want to clarify some issues:
* The goal of Plone is to be lightweight, to offload as much layout as
possible to the CSS. Should be possible to use in low-bandwith situations
(mobile 9600bps GSM connections etc).
From: Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In light of that, I would like to see a ZMI skin that is fully xhtml 1.0
compliant, and uses CSS2 to its full extend, and possibly some CSS3. To
me that means that one could develop the html coding completely devoid
of presentation (no tables used for
From: Casey Duncan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In light of that, I would like to see a ZMI skin that is fully xhtml 1.0
compliant, and uses CSS2 to its full extend, and possibly some CSS3. To
me that means that one could develop the html coding completely devoid
of presentation (no tables used for
At 07:41 AM 4/5/02 -0500, Paul Everitt wrote:
I think this conversation is
trending in the wrong direction.
The core ZMI is needed to the extent that it helps build or administer
products. Thus, Zope 3 is not like YABB.
Yes, your point is well taken. I hesitated bringing this up in the
first
If you're looking for a group that understands UI and HTML, check out
www.37signals.com. They do excellent UI and design work that looks
simple, clean, and slick. They're expensive, but I wouldn't be
surprised if they donated their work just to say they designed Zope
3's UI, that would be a huge
On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 03:05:39PM -0600, Stephan Richter wrote:
Hello everyone,
as we are moving forward developing Zope 3 with large steps, it becomes
more and more desirable to think about a nice frontend (ZMI) for Zope 3.
However the skill set of the developers currently working on
At 08:04 PM 4/4/02 -0300, Lalo Martins [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I propose to base the Zope3 ZMI on
the Plone CMF skin (designed primarily by
the talented Alexander Limi and Vidar Andersen with important coding by
Alan
Runyan), which can be seen at
http://plone.org.
Perhaps we should take Lalo's
Perhaps we should take Lalo's suggestion further and collect a list of
existing designs that show what real graphic talent has been able to
accomplish. Some of the newer weblogs, wikis, forums, portals etc. out
there are looking almost, well, beautiful. Here's an example from YABB
(Yet
Stephan Richter writes:
I think we can safely rely on CSS. Common, Zope 3 is a new product, and if
someone needs to make it backward Browser-compatible, he can always
implement a less fancy CSS-free skin.
Argh!
I can hear Guido tell us about his Netscape 4 now... There are still
a
At 11:36 PM 4/4/02 -0600, you wrote:
I think we can safely rely on
CSS.
Would you be comfortable with CSS Level 2?
Current CSS standards even provide some of the dynamic formatting, like
text rollovers, that used to require Javascript . I, for one, would
limit the dependency on Javascript in the
WT == William Trenker [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
WT Current CSS standards even provide some of the dynamic
WT formatting, like text rollovers, that used to require
WT Javascript .
When Fred showed me this, I freaked, it was so cool. But then I use
Mozilla, so I don't know that you
William Trenker writes:
Would you be comfortable with CSS Level 2?
My own thought is that we could use CSS 2 and as much of CSS 3 as we
can coax out of advanced browsers. We should use the advanced CSS
features to avoid needing *Script, since that's evil and many users
turn it off due to
28 matches
Mail list logo
