Smidge204 Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I'd like to pose a question to you... would you mind if the skin system disappeared? I'm rewriting the main site scripts, and I'm divided over whether or not it's worth trying to preserve that feature. It's a bit of a pain to keep as I'd like to do away with the rather bulky template backend and go towards a more lean (bandwidth and computational) AJAX system. I'd like to hear your opinions on the matter. =Smidge= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I've used it like twice and never when I browsed the main site for more than 45 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRD Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Yeah, I've only used it once. It's not needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitemare Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Get rid! I hate my skin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kain Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 As long as you have a good skin, there's no need to have changeable skin. Neat, but probably not worth the waste in time or bandwidth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blyde Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I agree, I really didn't use it a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuma Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I'm being different and saying, keep it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DimensionWarped Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rael0505 Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 Jesus I totally forgot that was there. I say get rid of the classic one and keep the Nitemare one. That doesn't seem to be an option on the poll, so I'm not voting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheonix Gamma Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I'm the only one who voted for the first option, so naturally, you should keep it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midiman Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I say we mix nite's and sfghq's and make it sort of soft, yet retains the classic SFGHQ feel if not, go with the default SFGHQ, it's more homey also, There's a site that goes with this forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pheonix Gamma Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 There's a site that goes with this forum? You joke, but someone on IRC said "there's a forum?" in #sagexpo...I hate tot tell him there was a forum that went with SAGE, and a site that goes with the forum that goes with SAGE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gamerdude Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I think it's a neat feature, however I don't think it is needed. The most important thing, I think, is to have a functional site that's easy to navigate and search through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spike Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 I rarely ever use the main site (Mostly due to it being 75% MMF oriented) and I never even knew the skin function existed until now. So... I don't realy care if you get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slingerland Posted August 18, 2007 Report Share Posted August 18, 2007 (Mostly due to it being 75% MMF oriented) For tutorials, this is true, but thanks to TRD, all the sprites are in sprite sheet form. Man, what a guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ssbfalcon Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 Hmm... I used it a few times, but it was pretty useless IMO... There's 2 themes, and they're both decent enough... Get rid of it I guess, and keep one good template... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeL Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 If the themes were done in CSS instead of throwing markup around the page, it would be a trivial matter to switch between them, but... It doesn't seem that anyone really thinks it should be there. If anyone changes their mind, I can't see how it'd be difficult at all for the page to just load a different stylesheet. style would need to be abstracted from content first, though. Also if you're redoing things the template really should be moved from tables to divs, and cleaned up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark the Echidna Posted August 19, 2007 Report Share Posted August 19, 2007 If the themes were done in CSS instead of throwing markup around the page, it would be a trivial matter to switch between them, but... QFT. IMO, everything should be XHTML 1.1 Strict now. We shouldn't use frames anymore, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smidge204 Posted August 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Dude, W3C's own website for CSS doesn't even comply. In fact it seems about a third the site fails in some way or another... There isn't a reason in existence why W3C standards should be implemented in full. It bloats documents, 99% of browsers don't support it anyway, and the only people who actually care about it are neo-IT dickwavers or the college students who will grow up to be them. It breeds the mentality that systems should be highly fault intolerant. By the very letter of the XHTML 1.1 standard, any error in the code should cause the browser to reject the entire document with no attempt to render it - no matter how trivial the error might be. From my perspective as an engineer, it's simply bullshit to make a system so tight unless it is absolutely required - and it's a fucking webpage, not a nuclear reactor. If it can render and function in the "Big Four" (IE, Opera, Mozilla/FireFox, Safari) then you've got 99.9% of the web covered. (And no, being in strict compliance will not get you that last 0.1%) But you know what? If you feel that strongly about it you can go ahead and do it. Let me know if you want to accept that challenge, 'cause I'll gladly put it up on the site if you pull it off. =Smidge= Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark the Echidna Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 Well, I like to conform to the standards, because later the website XHTML can be parsed by all kinds of tools, and stuff... But it may be that I'm just somewhat obsessive with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 I gave up on the XHTML Strict. Make it XHTML, but going transitional will be fine, if only to keep it clean and organised. I also voted to get rid of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeL Posted August 20, 2007 Report Share Posted August 20, 2007 it doesn't need to conform. it just needs to not be a hideous clump of style data embedded in html. if it's cleaned up a bit you can style it much easier just using css. then you could also have more themes because they'd be easier for people to make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epon Posted August 21, 2007 Report Share Posted August 21, 2007 AJAX me up, baby! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts