dreamscapes | Request for Feedback!

Entry tags:

-draft

Request for Feedback!

So, there was some discussion in the comments of the latest

dw_news post, and in the #dw-dev channel, about implementing a simple base color theme across ALL layouts we have (and all ones we will have in the future, theoretically). Me being me, I offered to give it a go myself. I did a quick mock-up on TR last night, and ported it across a few layouts to start. I'd really like to know how useable they are for other people, as it's designed to be a simple style for seeing the basic layout of each style without having to try and compare across colors as well (ie, looking at Bases in a purple theme, and Five AM in a pink one, and trying to see the underlying structure). And I am a test case of one, so *g*

Goals with this:
-make the underlying structure of a style easily apparent
-mimic the most commonly used scheming for a style (ie, all the themes for style A use colored title backgrounds, while most of the themes for style B don't)
-be accessible for the greatest number of users
-be nice enough that someone might want to actually use it as a theme *g*

So far I've just been doing stuff on the Recent Entries page, and I know I'm missing comment-styling, but these are drafts.

Monochromatic
Tabula Rasa
Bases
Basic Boxes

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

I really like the idea of having a colorway that exists in all layouts! I know how to ignore colors in favor of structure when I'm looking to switch (since I invariably do my own colors in any case XD ), but this would make that process much easier. Even more so for people who get lost in the colors.

I think the simplicity works. In the three samples, the structure of the layout stands out well, and the colors are unobtrusive, making the comparison easy for me. (And I'm a fan of monochromatic themes, so on that aspect it works for me!)

One thing I'd like to see in addition is a link in the wizard (possibly just under "base styles") to a cross-layout theme, so that it's easy to find for those who need the comparison. Something simpler than telling people they need to search for "monochromatic" or hope they notice there's the same theme name in all layouts. Ooooh, secondary thought, name it something that means it's always the very first to show in a layout's theme options. Possibly an symbol like * or #, like people do with tags a lot to keep important ones at the top of the list.

Yeah, I've had two people already tell me that they'd use that color scheme for Basic Boxes *g*

And definitely, I was actually considering putting in a suggestion to either 1) switch the 'base styles' category to something like this (as right now it's just whatever the designer picked as the 'default' for the layout), or add a new category for this. 'Monochromatic' is just kind of a working title so I have something to call it.

One thing that would be nice to see in combination, though it may be well out of the scope of this project and/or a wild difficulty in coding up: An option/link in the wizard that is something along the lines of "view this layout (with this theme and these columns) in live form". It's not always possible to tell that a layout puts a big border around blockquotes or changes all the bold tags to bright pink or whatever. I've set up a test journal with variations on every possible post I usually make (long subject, no subject, off-square icon, quotes, ordered lists, etc.) so that I can see what any given style does, but not everyone thinks to/wants to do that. The current form of "preview this style" is not very helpful in that regard, especially on a new/blank journal.

Hmm, yeah, that's a little out of the scope of this, but it's a great idea. Maybe run it through

dw_suggestions? Or if you don't want to, I wouldn't mind writing it up :) I like the idea of having, say, Preview Theme | Preview My Journal in Theme, where 'Preview Theme' goes to a site page that has examples of different types of coding, an entry with a locked entry, comments that are frozen, comments that are screened, etc, so you can see all the details of how it displays.

Seconding this so much.

My accounts, both here and on LJ, that I use for layout-building and layout-testing, have Lorem Ipsum posts with examples of most of the normal codes I could think of, like usernames, comm names, bolds, italics, underlines, blockquotes, ordered and unordered lists, hr, and a couple different comments. One of them, I even spammed enough comments that it collapsed a bunch of them, so now I can view those too. It's really nice to be able to test layouts like that. :)

It's a lovely idea and the result is pretty great.

Though, light blue text on slightly darkish light grey is unreadable (not enough contrast). All of the themes have that problem but it's much more present in Bases.

Good to know! It's the module section, I'm guessing?

(And this is exactly the sort of feedback I need *g* my sense of contrast != everyone else's)

mimic the most commonly used scheming for a style (ie, all the themes for style A use colored title backgrounds, while most of the themes for style B don't)

Is that why Basic Boxes is missing elements which are present in its default theme? Same question for Bases (and why the sidebar's on the left instead of on the right). I think I'd like it better if the theme matched the original designer's intentions.
Also it should be made clear that these --all previews actually but even more here since they're supposed to let you compare styles more easily-- are just one version of this style.

Edited 2012-04-23 10:47 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll have to go through and check the defaults - I was kind of just skimming the themes page for each layout to get a sense of what stuff generally looked like - a lot of themes don't necessarily stick closely to the original default, so drawing the line of how much styling to do gets tricky. The Bases thing - I set a layout prop in the TR theme so it didn't look totally wonky (as by default TR is one-column) and I copied the TR base to the other ones - and forgot to remove that line on Bases.

I was kind of just skimming the themes page for each layout to get a sense of what stuff generally looked like - a lot of themes don't necessarily stick closely to the original default

True but, to me, it doesn't mean that's what the style generally looks like. Some designers style the same styles over and over again, always in the same way, creating dozens of similar themes for them (not saying it's a bad thing; don't get me wrong) so quantity is often just one particular designer having made many themes for this style in the end. I don't think it makes it more representative than the default.

Edited 2012-04-23 10:59 (UTC)

It's true, but this project is sort of meant to give people an idea of what the available themes for a style are going to look like. If the original designer didn't style element $foo, but 90% of the themes for that style do style element $foo, having a simple example that doesn't match the 90% of availability is misleading, imo. It's not representative of what the layout usually looks like with the themes available.

You're right but it also seems to me this will reinforce the idea that what you see is what you can only get and that theming is only about colors, which seems to be misconceptions for at least some users. Also it means all your themes are going to be predominantly light on dark. These are issues which are wider than the scope of your project but I wanted to mention them.

The light-on-dark issue is one I've considered, and am trying to figure out a good solution for - I can make more than one set of bases, but then making them easily accessible from /customize becomes trickier.

As for the idea that what you see is only what you can get/'themes are only about colors' - until we radically overhaul previews, there really isn't a good solution there. I don't have the skills to sit and overhaul that, so I'm trying to do the best I can within the scope of what's available right now.

As for the idea that what you see is only what you can get/'themes are only about colors' - until we radically overhaul previews, there really isn't a good solution there. I don't have the skills to sit and overhaul that, so I'm trying to do the best I can within the scope of what's available right now.

I know you do and that's a great thing. No question about that.
As I said above, I'd like it if was made very clear what these are*. It seems to me "implementing a simple base color theme across ALL layouts we have" and "what the layout usually looks like with the themes available" can be two different concepts, with different interpretations on top of that, and you're leaning more towards #2.

* Forgot to mention I'm also saying this because if it's #2 rather than #1 it means the themes and previews may have to be updated as we get more themes and the most predominant theming style evolves.

Edited 2012-04-23 11:33 (UTC)

Ahh, okay. And yes, I am - the comments that prompted this were more wanting a single color theme that all layouts had, for comparison, but on thinking about it, I realized it would probably be most accessible if it had the simplest styling necessary to get a 'feel' for layouts and the look of themes in those layouts, without worrying about colors. So it's sort of a balance between 'simplicity' and 'if you like this layout, most of the themes currently available look kind of like this'. Particularly as in some of the related threads, there was a certain amount of 'I don't want to fiddle with the wizard, I want already-made layouts that fit my needs'.

I know. I've read these comments.

currently available

If you mean to let people use these themes you won't be able to update them so there might be a point where the 'basic' theme and what the style generally looks like will be two different things. What then?

Edit: in case that wasn't clear I'm not against this project. I think this is a good idea and could be very useful to some users but I wanna make sure it works long-term. See what I mean?

Edited 2012-04-23 11:41 (UTC)

An excellent point, and one I hadn't considered. If we're lucky, the code for multiple preview versions will be available by then *g* Unfortunately anything I do will end up being a compromise - the wizard is really that powerful, in terms of options available. Which is great! But makes previews hard.

If we're lucky, the code for multiple preview versions will be available by then

But it won't the change the themes themselves. Previews can be changed. Themes used by users can't.

Hmm, true. I think the two options then are either 1) have one set that can be changed that are system-only, and then just make the themes available when first created as normal styles as well (which would probably be more backend work), 2) accept that it's only going to be an approximation that is never going to be 100% perfect to how things exist or 3) make them unavailable in any form as 'useable' thems (though I've had three people already tell me they would use the Basic Boxes version right now if it was in the system)

Hmm. If the point of this is to let people compare styles more easily and particularly their default structure how about always using the same styling combos (as much as possible at least)? I mean if you put a back background to entry titles put it everywhere. If you put a border around entries, put it everywhere. That would also emphasize what isn't possible with this style (which in theory shouldn't happen because all default options should always apply but until we make things perfect...). I know it won't necessarily match the way most themes look like but how different would that make them look (also point #2 is true here too).

Hmm, that may be a good compromise! Particularly as.. yeah, some of the styles don't use things in the default way (which I ran into with Bases). I'll have to play with things, see if I can get a good neutral-ish color scheme going that has enough range in values to make things clear.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only