Hi Martijn, Did you build that page via jekyll or from raw HTML?
I'm thinking we could easily restructure the current jekyll content to output in that layout/style. I'm playing around with a new type of layout called 'landing' (for landing page - eg., like the home page) where things are laid out like your sample. Regards, Chris -----Original Message----- From: Guillaume Smet [mailto:guillaume.s...@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, 14 November 2014 11:50 PM To: users@wicket.apache.org Subject: Re: Wicke website makeover time? 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 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscr...@wicket.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: users-h...@wicket.apache.org
