[geeklog-devel] New GL default theme

Mon Oct 22 22:31:09 EDT 2007

"The real problem here, which we've confronted on and off again for
years, is the fact that there is markup in the code. I think it was
two or three years ago we had a big push to get the markup generated
in the code so that it would meet w3c html 4.01 strict."

GL isn't HTML 4.01 Strict now. It's HTML 4.01 Transitional. Even 
Blaine's NexPro site uses the Transitional doctype.

"Eric, we understand where you're coming from, but there are a number
of themes right now the meet w3c html 4.01 strict. If we updated the
code to reflect XHTML we'd break these themes. I understand your
question, "why HTML over XHTML?" My question in response would be:
What does XHTML get us that HTML 4.01 does not get us?"

I looked at every theme on http://demo.geeklog.net (yes, I'm neurotic 
and O.C. :-P) and there are a handful of HTML 4.0 Transitional (the 
really OLD themes) and the rest are HTML 4.01 Transitional. I don't 
think updating the code to XHTML would "break" the themes any more than 
releasing a new version of GL (1.5) with all its changes. In fact, I 
think that all the old theme remnants will do is make it so the code 
doesn't validate, but it should render in the browser fine. People 
always have a choice whether or not to upgrade. Let's face it, GL's 
release cycle seems to be about once a year (not counting RC's and 
bugfixes) let's pack as much as we can in!

"The logo looks great from an aesthetic standpoint.  But it doesn't
reflect anything about Geeklog.  The original logo, "The Geek",
reflected that Geeklog was build by Geeks for Geeks.  When we wanted
to expand our customers bit and update to a more "professional" theme,
we went with the paper clip logo to showcase both Geeklog's ability to
organize data and to reflect the new professional focus.

If the logo must (or should) be updated, part of me would like to see
an updated version of the geek.  Barring that, a logo design that
somehow reflects Geeklog is important."

You just gave a synopsis of the evolution of the logo, and what I'm proposing is continuing that evolution. :-) I understand what Dirk is saying re: having a banner already made up for the occasional convention, but business cards? please! I'll send you a box of 500 new ones with the left over change from my lunch tomorrow! :-P business cards are cheeeeeeeeep to make.

What I was going for with the logo was to have slanted text, giving the impression of speed, the world / networking icon to show it's web based, and worldwide. Perhaps I didn't achieve my goals, but I am open to suggestions. :-) Some sort of logo should be incorporated (and made into a favicon.ico) I've looked at many GPL image archives, and tried going that way. Perhaps a semi-transparent crystal-like cube in place of the networked world? I don't know. Bombard me with ideas! Like I said, having a banner is great, but at one point we had to retire our clan banner after 6 years. Our site looked long in tooth, and so did our banner. We re-vamped our site, and our banner, and moved on. I for one wouldn't mind contributing 5-10$ toward a new banner and business cards, if it means more glances while at a convention. Dirk's muscular physique just isn't doing the trick anymore! *elbows Dirk in the ribs, trying to keep the life and death decisions we are trying to hash out on the lighter side* :-) 

I have asked Dirk for the larger rez. current logos. I'll see what I can come up with to strike a compromise between a new look, and keeping the old investment in banners and cards paying off. I'm not here to totally change GL, just try to help give something back by giving it a face lift. :-)

...and I know everyone loves the email list, but this really needs to be done in a forum. Keeping tabs on this thing via email is becoming a real PITA.

Thx all for your contributions!

Eric 'Geiss' Warren 

Web Site Master wrote:
> If we are changing the theme to any great extent, the logo is going to need
> to be updated IMO.  I always thought the current logo is too small and I am
> not a huge fan of the font either.  I like what Geiss has done so far but
> you do bring up a good point with the paper clip.  
>
> While working on the logo Geiss, you might as well redesign the favicon so
> it all matches.
>
> Tom
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net
> [mailto:geeklog-devel-bounces at lists.geeklog.net] On Behalf Of Vincent Furia
> Sent: October-22-07 11:32 AM
> To: Geeklog Development
> Subject: Re: [geeklog-devel] New GL default theme
>
> On 10/22/07, geiss at midnightforce.com <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?
>>
>> "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?
>>
>>     
> The real problem here, which we've confronted on and off again for
> years, is the fact that there is markup in the code.  I think it was
> two or three years ago we had a big push to get the markup generated
> in the code so that it would meet w3c html 4.01 strict.
>
> I think our real target here should be to figure out a graceful way to
> get all the markup out of the code and into templates.  As has been
> discussed before, this may take using an entirely different template
> library as the current one doesn't scale well for the types of small
> templates we would need to replace the instance of HTML in the code.
>
> Eric, we understand where you're coming from, but there are a number
> of themes right now the meet w3c html 4.01 strict.  If we updated the
> code to reflect XHTML we'd break these themes.  I understand your
> question, "why HTML over XHTML?" My question in response would be:
> What does XHTML get us that HTML 4.01 does not get us?
>
>   
>> "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 logo looks great from an aesthetic standpoint.  But it doesn't
> reflect anything about Geeklog.  The original logo, "The Geek",
> reflected that Geeklog was build by Geeks for Geeks.  When we wanted
> to expand our customers bit and update to a more "professional" theme,
> we went with the paper clip logo to showcase both Geeklog's ability to
> organize data and to reflect the new professional focus.
>
> If the logo must (or should) be updated, part of me would like to see
> an updated version of the geek.  Barring that, a logo design that
> somehow reflects Geeklog is important.
>
>   
>> "I see there some conflict with the menu points on top of the page
>> (calendar twice, whats the logical separation?)"
>>
>> I understand your confusion, let me clarify. :-) Right now, I have both
>> menus up, for the sake of discussion. I chose to repeat some of the links
>> because I wanted to show what it looks like both ways. Since the top blue
>> menu is generated as just links, and the bottom black menu is generated
>>     
> with
>   
>> list items, I couldn't easily just have both menus pull from the same
>> {menu_elements} code.
>>
>>     
> I think you can loose the first menu.  I think the second one fits in
> with your theme must better.  For the second menu, I'd loose the
> "Home" link.  The logo right above it and the Topic Navigation block
> right below it both have links to the same place.  It seems a bit
> redundant.
>
> Overall I really like this theme.  It is softer than the current
> professional theme and it gives the site a more polished look.  The
> colors balance each other really well and the form itself flows
> nicely.  You obviously put a lot of work into this theme, and shows in
> the detail.
>
> Thanks!
> -Vinny
> _______________________________________________
> geeklog-devel mailing list
> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
> http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>
> __________ NOD32 2607 (20071022) Information __________
>
> This message was checked by NOD32 antivirus system.
> http://www.eset.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> geeklog-devel mailing list
> geeklog-devel at lists.geeklog.net
> http://eight.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/geeklog-devel
>
>
>   