Re: I'm back.

[Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>]

<quote who="Joakim Ziegler">

> Also, with the number of users on non-CSS browsers declining, we can let
> the non-CSS version of the page slowly become a sort of lynx/links
> optimized version, like the light version many sites have.

(Wouldn't it be better to show links/lynx people the CSS version? Like, the
non-CSS would be the table-layout compatible one.)

> > Currently, with Steve's HTML/CSS combo, we can just switch CSS based on
> > the browser, which is attractive to me. I'm trying as hard as possible
> > to aim for the ability to serve static html, and very little dynamic
> > stuff.
> 
> This uses Javascript currently, right? That strikes me as a little
> unelegant. However, see below, I think we can fix all this in one blow.

No, that's just a demo of the different backgrounds and looks. There's no
way we'd be using javascript for anything other than rollovers and (useful)
pretty stuff.

> I read this, and I started thinking, "Isn't there a way to do this easily,
> using PHP or something seems like vast overkill". And then, I remembered:
> There is. mod_rewrite.

> Now, mod_rewrite is a bit of voodoo, but not more than I should be able to
> handle if I sit down and tweak it a bit.

Yeah. I shelved doing that at one point because I had some damn fool idea
about the site being physically mirrored elsewhere, and wanting it done
easily. Any dynamic stuff kills that anyway, so we can do it. I had some
interesting challenges trying it out, but it is possible.

> Out of curiosity, how do translations work now? Remembering the gettext
> discussion we had the last time that came up, I mean.

Translated XML files (far saner than gettext and php shenanigans), much like
the Nautilus ones. jrb and DV have hacked up doc-i18n-tool, which I'll have
to hack on a bit more, but that's the idea.

> The process looks fine, though. So the source files are XML? A custom
> sort of DTD? How will the navigational structure be defined?

Pretty much. Basically XHTML for familiarity, plus a bunch of useful tags
for doing application stuff. A lot less pain than, say, DTML.


> I know you're planning to present this at GUADEC, but it'd be great to
> know more about this before that, for those of us who actually are going
> to work with it. :)

Yeah. ;) I'm trying to clear things up as I go, but most of the reason why I
decided to just hack things up is direction - the more people we have piling
things on at the beginning makes it very hard to actually implement
something. Once it's working, then we can start tweaking it out and stuff.

> Oh, it won't? Why not? It seems to me that a tree would probably be a
> good idea, that's how most sites do it. At least if the alternative is
> to only show the siblings of the current page.

Trees aren't great for contextual navigation - they show too much other crap
(see developer.gnome.org). You might want to take this up with Seth on your
own, because I don't want to get involved in that conversation again.

Basically, most large sites that don't deal with heirarchical documentation
have shelved trees, because there are better ways of displaying navigational
information, and better ways of using the space. (See microsoft.com as a
good example.)

> Ok, what I designed the top navbar for originally was to list the main
> sections of the site, and then the sidebar could take care of navigation
> on the levels below that. It's similar to what we do with the tabs on
> www.ximian.com, and lots of sites do this, it's almost become a standard
> navigational device.

I want to get back to that, but there are IA things to think about there
too.

> Oh, that's interesting. The problem is that if we do this, people will
> scream and shout because a) There wasn't a contest, b) A portion of the
> people will always think any change is bad, and c) The marketing people
> have time and effort invested in the current logo. So I don't know.

a) Bugger that. :)
b) Of course, but we're sensible enough to ignore that crap.
c) There's been some discussion with them too, taking their ideas into
account. :)

> > I think the best spots to start banging on are IA and design issues,
> > especially the correlation of the two. That would really help.
> 
> Ok, that's what I'll do, then. Plenty of stuff to do there, I think.

Swoit, thanks.

- Jeff

-- 
  "When's the last time you heard of the police having to intervene at an   
                   antiquarian book riot?" - Raph Levien