Matt, Great work done on this initiative.
I question the aversion to JavaScript and jQuery, thus aversion to frameworks like Bootstrap. Is this due to the a perceived complexity of such a solution, or just a general aversion to JavaScript. Often when I see an aversion to JavaScript then there is a companion aversion to Cookies. However, with your changes you are using cookies. Also, a simple bootstrap design only touches jQuery by its mere inclusion. All the rest is in the bootstrap framework. So a newbie does not need to concern themselves with tweaking any code as such. I just feel that using cookies but not JavaScript or jQuery is paradoxical. I am sure you will be able to convince me otherwise. Regards Darryn On Wednesday, November 16, 2016 at 2:57:14 AM UTC+11, Tom Keffer wrote: > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 1:34 PM, mwall <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> thank you for the feedback! >> >> what features/functionality do you consider must-have for the standard >> skin? >> > > It should be useful out-of-the-box on all platforms, and all screen > sizes. The goal is to make sure a user is successful on his/her first try. > Once successful, she/he will be encouraged to start modifying. > > > > >> what other attributes should the new standard skin have, e.g., "easy for >> new users to understand", "easy to extend", "show all sensor data", >> "illustrate core weewx capabilities" >> > > Five years ago, I would have said "simplicity, simplicity, simplicity." It > was better to have an easy-to-understand, but plain, website that could be > easily customized. Now, I'm not so sure. The state-of-the-art has moved on > and so have expectations. > > When I look back at what modifications users have made to the Standard > skin, they seem to fall into three areas, of decreasing popularity: > > 1. Adding new sensors; > 2. Playing with CSS and the <div> blocks to make a customized layout; > 3. Developing a responsive website. > > The first is easy: users can just follow the pattern established by the > Standard skin to add new plots or stats. > > The second is being attacked by your new skin. By making liberal use of > .inc blocks, you're making it easy to move things around and to attach CSS > to the blocks. > > The question is whether we should try #3. That would require jQuery and > something like bootstrap. I think if we structure the logic carefully, we > should be able to factor out most of the UI complexity, so the user need > only add new .inc blocks to extend functionality. > > Over time, I would like to offer what you're calling "JavaScript plots," > but, at this point, I think that's a bridge too far. I don't think the > tools are up to it yet: D3 is waaaay too hard! Eventually, somebody will > write a good D3 library, but it hasn't happened yet. > > -tk > >
