Hi,

Personnally, I really liked what Martijn did here:
http://people.apache.org/~dashorst/wicket-flat/

It's clean and has personnality.

The only thing IMHO is that a one page design for this amount of
information is perhaps a bit too much.

-- 
Guillaume

On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Chris Colman
<chr...@stepaheadsoftware.com> wrote:
>>> I think a multi phase approach might have more chance of success - as
> I
>>> said in my immediate previous post if we could live with jekyll
> source
>>> for phase one (even though it may not be ideal) then we can keep most
> of
>>> the current content source 'as is' and simply choose a decent modern
>>> Bootstrap CSS template to re-render it in to deliver the best 'bang
> for
>>> buck' possible at this early stage.
>>
>>Bootstrap would be too standard and anonymous and would ultimately be
>>a ball and chain. A little .less and responsiveness can easily be
>>achieved without going bootstrap.
>
> IMHO standard and anonymous looks a lot better than retro late 1990s ;)
>
> Having said that, there are plenty of Bootstrap customization tools
> (Bootswatch etc.,) that would allow us to customize very quickly and so
> move well away from the standard and anonymous Bootstrap look and feel -
> I would never use the standard Bootstrap template without customization
> - it's too generic these days.
>
> While we could go "home grown" i.e. without the help of Bootstrap and do
> a little .less (or .sass) and responsiveness the use of Bootstrap's
> already awesome (tried and tested and working) responsiveness and it's
> cross browser compatibility (who wants to deal with issues like that in
> 2014?) could make this a very quick project.
>
> I know I don't have a lot of time to spare to make greenfield, home
> grown responsiveness that works across IE7+, FF, Chrome and Safari.
>
> So a quick project is a good project for me. If it ends up looking a lot
> more modern and sexy than the current site and it takes hours instead of
> weeks then I think it's going to happen. If we insist on not using a
> grid/CSS/JS template like Bootstrap and so make the effort measured in
> weeks instead of hours then I fear that the website will still have it's
> current look and feel in a years time.
>
> I don't think we'll be locked into Bootstrap anyway. If the translator
> uses bootstrap then the copy can remain Bootstrap free and easily moved
> to another CSS/JS library later if required.
>
>>
>>> Or does Jekyll have a fairly fixed translator that provides little
>>> customizability?
>>
>>Jekyll is fully customizable. It's just a translator from markdown to
>>HTML with templates and includes.
>>
>>Martijn
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org

Reply via email to