[geeklog-devel] New GL default theme
oliver at spiesshofer.com
Mon Oct 22 11:22:23 EDT 2007
geiss at midnightforce.com wrote:
> "Well for a start the layout authors create the most HTML and I am not
> sure I want to force them to the one or the other."
> ...well, I'm a layout author, and I'm giving some input asking for
> XHTML. :-) I don't presume to be *the* layout author, but I've been
> pretty active in generating themes for GL, and feel that I've earned
> the right to give some reasonable input. Again, I like the idea
> of having switchable doctypes, but with that choice, I would go with
> XHTML over HTML every time. I may be missing something, and if so,
> please enlighten me, but like I stated earlier, can anyone provide an
> example of why they would go with HTML over XHTML?
its not a matter of direct choice for all of the layouts. The current
existing layouts would need a major rework instead only the updates for
the current version. All those theme authors who only know HTML rules
would have to adapt and rework every single file of their layout. Older
layouts where there is only the update maintenance done, would
completely fall out since probably nobody would take the time to rework
the complete layout to xhtml.
> "There have been already quite some updates to the code. Also, I think
> despite the fact that it is a lot of work, a careful replace action on
> ">" would be doing the job at any point in time."
> I'm honestly confused. It sounds like, on the one hand, that it would
> be a big job, but yet the comment above makes it sound like no big
> deal. Thoughts anyone?
To work in the updates from bare files without the CVS control files and
w/o a diff is a lot of work specially now since the CVS has been worked
on. chances are that some changes will be overlooked. The more secure
way to make sure everything is correct would be to do it all again. It
is a lot of work because of the many lines that have to be changed, but
its not complicated work.
> "hmmm... good from the graphical quality point of view, not so special
> from the creativity/recognizability point."
> Thanks for the feedback! If I understand you correctly, you're saying
> it looks good, but... I'm not sure where you're going with the
> creativity/recognizability comment. I can understand that you don't
> think it's creative (for ie. lots of graphic designs replace letters
> with pictures, or use grey-ish silver lettering, use drop shadows,
> etc.) I'm ok with that comment. I'm not trying to re-invent the wheel.
> :-) But for recognizability, I'm not sure what you mean. Can
> you clarify? Thx! :-)
the typeface seems generic, the graphic ball is not really recognizable
if its a pearl, a globe, planet etc and would get lost in meaning in a
smaller rendering. also, it is not relating at all to the word geeklog
(which would be nice). If you use a graphic element in the logo it
should have some kind of meaning IMHO, and the typeface should be
something less italic-arial-type if I might say so.
Logos are a damn hard thing to create, and I am very critical here since
I have been working with logo designs for some time now. I dont say i am
good at making them, but I know what it requires to make a good one.
More information about the geeklog-devel