Posted 4 years ago #
Hello,
I'm planning to do a new, GPL-licensed theme soon and instead of doing it the usual way, I want to start by gathering ideas from you guys. So, do you have any ideas/features that you'd like to see in a theme? If it sounds great, I'd love to try working on it.
So, let me know. Thank you!
Posted 4 years ago #
Anything which does not look like a generic blog theme.
Avoid the whole one, two or three column route and go for something a little off base. There are heaps of themes around which all look the same.
Or if you do go down the typical structure route, make sure you include plenty of extra functionality or some funky graphics (like http://ma.tt/).
Perhaps you could integrate some serious photo gallery features into it? I'm yet to see any serious integrations of photo galleries into WordPress themes yet. The new monotone theme is creating a lot of interest, but it isn't much use for anything but photo blogging. A regular theme which incorporates features like and/or could handle a full on gallery with efficient navigation etc. would be very cool.
nice to see people out there gathering opinions.
I don't really even know if this is possible, but I'd like to see a fully resizable flash-based theme (one that scales with your browser, but involves no traditional scrolling) that's fed its data by PHP.
I know absolutely nothing about flash, I just want a theme that's identical at different resolutions, except for the anti-aliasing.
... anyway, if not that, I'd like to see a theme for newbies - shmick looking for sure, but it should come with its own admin interface cobbled into functions.php... with dropdown boxes allowing users to select which categories are pulled into the various sections of the theme.
no PHP knowledge, no file-management experience, no real clue whatsoever, necessary.
It's a selfish request, as I think it would be great to cut down this forum's traffic by half ;)
In fact, if you did that, I think even if it were a graphically simple theme, I think it would rival kubrick as the most modded theme from that point onwards -- just because everyone would want to cut and paste their way into a theme with its own useful admin page.
Posted 4 years ago #
Ick Flash, yucky!
I've heard good things about the Shifter theme. It apparently lets you control a whole bunch of things with the layout via the admin interface.
nobody asked for comments from the peanut gallery - if he wants to he will, if he doesn't he won't.
cheers for the link to shifter though... if it doesn't require theme editing at all, then why don't all the newbies know about it?
btw, as for the flash thing - not everyone uses wordpress in the same way - it would be really nice to have a touchscreen interface which was the same dimensions, layout and font size completely regardless of resolution.
If you can think of an easier way to do that without flash, I'm all ears.
Posted 4 years ago #
Hi, guys, thank you for the feedback.
Regarding the flash based theme, I don't think I have the capabilities (or the will) of building that. If the aim is to have a consistent layout and font-size, isn't this what the elastic layout tries to solve? Or is there any issue with that?
What I'm interested most from the ideas is the theme-for-newbies one. I think Shifter is a good example, I wonder if we can make it even more awesome by applying your experiences with dealing with people's most common issues on this forum? What do most new users want to do with their themes, change logo, move the sidebar, etc?
If all goes well we probably could go and put in a somewhat more advanced photo gallery features into it, although I'm still arguing whether this functionality should be done via plugins instead?
well, given that themes are so specific in layout, it would be up to the theme to provide the 'plugin' functionality right?... and if you're shipping your theme with a plugin, then the plugin stuff may as well be in functions.php (or at least included from there).
anyhow, a lot of the functionality depends on the theme itself.
if you have a magazine layout theme, then you'd need to be able to choose categories (preferably from a dropdown list) to fill each column, to denote where the feature article comes from, etc etc.
it would be nice to handle page/category exclusions from the theme's menu, on the options page, as well as allowing users to enter their own links in the site's menu.
these are the most common things people struggle with.
Anywhere you have an image provided (like the header, if you use one) should allow users to select and upload a replacement.
... basically, you would build your awesome theme first - then you'd make a list of what needs to be customised to allow someone to use it.
... then you provide that ability via an options page.
in terms of graphics/layout etc, every type of theme you can think of already exists. As far as newbies are concerned, the trouble with theme authors is that they are graphics people not coders.
More themes written with this sort of functionality would give users lots of choice, and really cut down the time they need to spend in the codex learning about the back-end (or alternately begging for support here).
Posted 4 years ago #
I agree with Ivovic, there does seem to be quite a big demand for idiot proof themes which you can modify yourself. You just need to make sure the theme doesn't run too slow because of all the programming going on behind the scenes.
Posted 4 years ago #
One thing would be nice, a modular design where the user can arrange the design.
Posted 4 years ago #
So, here's what I gather so far. Theme option page is a must, basically, and here's generally what needs to be present there:
1. Option to change header image.
2. Ability to modify the menu link. Wouldn't it be easier to use WordPress' built in Link and Link Categories feature to allow people modify the links, instead of making them input their own links on the Option page? My idea for the top menu / navigation is to list Pages by default (like most themes), and if people want to change it I'd give them a dropdown list of the Link Categories they want to use.
3. Category exclusion from navigation... I'm still not sure how to present this option effectively. Anyone can help me?
4. A completely modular design might be a bit complex for me to work on, would a few different layout options be a useful feature to have? The Sandbox theme, for example, has different CSS for different layout (2 columns, 3 columns, etc), but user must modify the source to use the CSS she wants. I'm thinking of presenting the layout option via the theme option page instead.
I think these are enough development materials for now, I might begin coding shortly while keep gathering ideas from you guys/gals. Thanks again!
Posted 4 years ago #
Ability to choose between 2 or 3 columns.
Flexible width.
Easy way to switch between a Graphic Logo/Title or a text Title.
right, having the layout options by choosing a different CSS is a great idea - however, make sure to separate the element positioning from things like font sizes and image stuff, etc...
so that when you pick a different layout, your image borders and font colours stay the same.
to address the navigation stuff, here's the deal as I see it should be:
1) provide the choice to list Pages as nav items or Categories. In other words, set yourself a variable, which you can use in the theme to tell you which template tag to use, so in your theme you might have something like if($navoption='pages') wp_list_pages(blahblah);
Some people might want to list the pages on their site as nav items, others might want to use categories for that purpose - which in my view is often better, but most themes don't allow the choice.
2) people will invariably (eventually) have more pages and categories on their site than they want to display in their top menu, right? So you have to allow them to either select multiple categories/pages to exclude.... or, which I think is better, actually make them specify which pages/categories to INCLUDE in the menu list.
so once they've chosen whether they're listing pages or categories - give them between 5 and 10 dropdowns boxes allowing them to pick which pages or categories they want included in their menu.
Obviously if in the first option they've chosen to list pages -- all they see here are pages. If they've chosen categories, all they see are categories, right?
3) as for actually excluding or including them... this is a little tricky, but not very.
both wp_list_pages and wp_list_categories provide an include= parameter which takes a comma-separated list of either page IDs, or categor IDs. When your users build their list with your dropdown menus, simply store that list as 1,2,3,4,5 etc, and then pull it into a variable for use in your theme...
wp_list_pages/categores("include=$myplugin_menuitems");
...should do the trick then.
4) This is an easy one, but I think you should also provide the option of allowing comments on pages, since they aren't by default.
5) as for link categories, you could allow them to use a link category for additional menu links if you wanted, but I think that adds extra complexity. If you do that, then you need to have them first MAKE a link category, then tell your theme which link category to use... yadda yadda.
I'm saying get them to choose pages or cats for internal links - then provide 2 extra options for linking offsite. Just a couple of text entry fields each, like:
[link title] [web address]
[link title] [web address]
and have them appear at the end of their internal links on the nav bar.
so the nav bar ends up looking something like
[home] [cat1] [cat2] [cat3] [linktitle1]
just to let them link to things like a forum, or their flickr page or whatever. Anyone who wants more than that can set up their own link category and pop it into the header.
this sort of seems like a lot, but the more I think about it, it's not actually that bad. You just need a couple of fields in the options table to store your stuff.
Posted 4 years ago #
Everyone's talking about making the theme flexible and extensible. Is there any reason the theme cannot be based on this:
http://code.google.com/p/blueprintcss/
I've downloaded it but haven't had time to play with it yet.
Posted 4 years ago #
And then there's this technique I read about recently which allows you to shrink or grow an image without any noticeable lossiness... sweet.
http://www.connectedinternet.co.uk/2007/09/06/future-of-website-images-200-to-whomever-can-implement-solution/
I cannot remember where I stashed the original link and I'm not at home now, but I think you get the idea of it, especially if you click thru to the adobe article (first link in the sentence).
Posted 4 years ago #
BlueprintCSS is only useful for massive corporations who want to standardise their network. It's not much use for developing blog themes.
The other link you left isn't loading for me unfortunately.
Posted 4 years ago #
Hmm. Loads fine for me (Texas/USA). I went ahead and clicked thru to the Adobe article it referenced:
http://www.downloadsquad.com/2007/08/29/adobe-hires-image-resizing-pioneer/
And if you google for "seam carving" which is what this technique is called, you may find more. I am fascinated by this. I think it holds promise for making fluid layouts. :)
That's absolutely outstanding.
My concern is that it's a little processor intensive - and really absolutely useless for the web without browser support (wrapping it in flash sucks), which means that it won't make it to the web for at least 5 years after its already in wide use elsewhere. That's disappointing. Uptake of this sort of thing in browsers seems to take longer than getting FDA approval.
I'm really glad you linked that. It's the most revolutionary thing to happen to image manipulation since lossy compression.
Posted 4 years ago #
If an open source system based on those concepts is released, it shouldn't take too long to be introduced into Firefox.
Even basic image resizing abilities would be nice though, I don't think we need any of these fancy techniques, just some regular image resizing algorithms like most photo editors use would do the trick. The current resizing systems in web browsers tend to do a pretty bad job.
It's a bit of a chicken and egg situation though. There isn't much demand for these features at the moment because no one is using them, no one is using them because they can't be used. But I think once they're introduced they will be come main stream quite rapidly.
Some of the new maths based CSS3 features will help with designing these types of layouts too.
EDIT: link is working fine for me now.
including it in firefox is nice, but means nothing really.
you can't really develop websites for browsers and their fleeting support for one thing over another. Doing that just makes the web a bigger mess than it already is.
Instead, someone needs to light a fire under the w3c's ass. Standards organisations are notoriously slow, but this isn't ISO for crying out loud, we're not talking about having to change billions of dollars of manufacturing equipment, we're just talking about 5 pieces of FREE software getting a new version.
What's the freaking hold-up?
Posted 4 years ago #
What on earth does image rendering have to do with the W3C? They provide web standards, not image rendering standards, that's up to the individual browsers to implement, just as they do with text rendering.
they provide page layout standards, and I imagine image tags would need additional attributes in order to work with re-renderable flexible image sizes.
if this technology is embraced, it would be hobbled without being able to add size information to css background image definitions, for example.
christ, use your imagination.
Posted 4 years ago #
I imagine image tags would need additional attributes in order to work with re-renderable flexible image sizes.
What attributes would they require? Current browsers are able to render flexible sizes (albeit not very well) and they don't require extra tags to achieve it.
The CSS3 specifications under development would cover most image resizing issues I need for general web development.
this is exactly the point I'm making, which you're arguing against for some reason.
This document on CSS3 backgrounds has been in development since 2002... that's 6 years of my life waiting for a bloody web standard... and it aint even done yet.
Where's the ubiquitous browser support for that, then? Perhaps if it comes in my lifetime, I'll agree that adding a new image rendering technology is worthwhile.
Seriously dude, what's your point? You're talking about CSS3 as if it actually exists. It's been 6 years or more and barely anything has come of it.... but all of a sudden, that's as good as done for you?
I get the feeling you're trying to counter my point just for the sake of argument. It's annoying and childish, but mainly because you're wrong.
I said "someone needs to light a fire under the w3c's ass" and I mean it... its been far too long, and with that kind of standards approval process in place its no wonder browser vendors go out on their own.
Moreover, this discussion isn't even about firefox, its about mobile browsers more than anything, where screen dimensions and orientation tend to change more dramatically.
Posted 4 years ago #
Web Design and Website Development
Enymedia is an American web design company based in New York that is committed to providing companies with professional and affordable websites. We are redefining the way web sites are built and managed by introducing a range of web design packages that incorporate professional web design and advanced web site functionality. With Enymedia, getting your business website online has never been faster, simpler and more affordable.
Enymedia offers a range of web design and development services: WebSiteDesign,Ecommerce,Web Programming,S.E.O & S.E.M,Flash & Interactive
<Online Shop> PACKAGE FROM ONLY $1000
<Enterprise Website> PACKAGE FROM ONLY $300
Tel: 404-567-4573
Fax: 1-888-202-9598
Email: service@enymedia.com
WEB:www.enymedia.com
Posted 4 years ago #
Ivovic - Chill out. I am entitled to my opinion. You don't have to agree with it.
this is exactly the point I'm making, which you're arguing against for some reason.
No. I am arguing that the W3C shouldn't have anything to do with browsers image rendering processes, just like they don't have anything to do with font rendering.
This document on CSS3 backgrounds has been in development since 2002... that's 6 years of my life waiting for a bloody web standard... and it aint even done yet.
Yes. I don't understand what that has to do with image rendering though. AFAIK it deals image positioning, not the rendering of them.
Where's the ubiquitous browser support for that, then? Perhaps if it comes in my lifetime, I'll agree that adding a new image rendering technology is worthwhile.
I don't believe the W3C needs to be involved. A similar situation has existed with anti-aliasing of fonts. IE7 and Safari both render fonts radically differently to Firefox, Opera etc., this is not a standards requirement it is a browser decision. AFAIK the same situation applies to image rendering.
Seriously dude, what's your point?
That I can't see a reason why the W3C should have anything to do with how browsers render images. There may be one, but I haven't heard it yet.
You're talking about CSS3 as if it actually exists. It's been 6 years or more and barely anything has come of it.... but all of a sudden, that's as good as done for you?
No. I said that the W3C has developments in place which will cover most of the basic image manipulation/position requirements I need for web development. I didn't mention anything about a timeline or whether it is reasonable.
I get the feeling you're trying to counter my point just for the sake of argument. It's annoying and childish, but mainly because you're wrong.
???
I said "someone needs to light a fire under the w3c's ass" and I mean it... its been far too long, and with that kind of standards approval process in place its no wonder browser vendors go out on their own.
Yes, lots of people agree with that, myself included.
Moreover, this discussion isn't even about firefox, its about mobile browsers more than anything, where screen dimensions and orientation tend to change more dramatically.
Anything built into Firefox can be re-engineered for other browsers due to it being open source, mobile browsers included. This is why I mentioned Firefox initially.
if you don't see the relationship between CSS sizing and positioning, and a technology which changes the shape and size of images, then I can't help you.
until the ability to manipulate element backgrounds is *widely* available, adding a technology like this to browsers will be severely limited in usefulness.
thats what I said 2 days ago, that's what I say now.
explain to me how I can scale a background image via CSS now, and I'll agree that the w3c has nothing to do with it.
...and this whole firefox-specific thread of discussion is just pointless.
if you expect me to chill out and believe that you're not intentionally trying to piss me off, then you'll have to try and be just a little bit logical about this. Why bust your ass implementing a sizing technology, if it's only useful half the time?
Posted 4 years ago #
if you don't see the relationship between CSS sizing and positioning, and a technology which changes the shape and size of images, then I can't help you.
until the ability to manipulate element backgrounds is *widely* available, adding a technology like this to browsers will be severely limited in usefulness.
thats what I said 2 days ago, that's what I say now.
The W3C specs and most browsers already allow for manipulations of images. They just happen to do it poorly. If browsers start implementing it, web designers will start using it and other browsers will have to catch up as users will start noticing that the occasional site looks wonky for them in one browser but not in another.
explain to me how I can scale a background image via CSS now, and I'll agree that the w3c has nothing to do with it.
AFAIK that is not possible. I think it's part of the CSS3 specs although I'm not 100% certain.
...and this whole firefox-specific thread of discussion is just pointless.
Firefox specific? I've been discussing image rendering.
if you expect me to chill out and believe that you're not intentionally trying to piss me off
???
, then you'll have to try and be just a little bit logical about this. Why bust your ass implementing a sizing technology, if it's only useful half the time?
There are plenty of websites which already render images wonky, they may not be doing it dynamically (although some do), but if those images are rendered correctly in one browser over another, then users of that browser will reap the benefits of a better rendering system.
you're repeatedly glossing over my points.
perhaps you suffer from selective blindness, or perhaps not... either way, count me out of the game ;)
enjoy.
This topic has been closed to new replies.
