thoughts on Seaside 3.0
Locked
 
|
I've been lurking in the squeak/seaside lists for a while, and feel I should add to the discussion of new features for a possible seaside 3.0.
The major obstacle that I see to further adoption and growth of seaside is widespread community ignorance of the design side of web development. This has to do with templates, but it runs much, much deeper. The html templates issue has two sides. From a design standpoint, burying html inside smalltalk leads to opposite but equal maintainability problems and inelegant html code. The reality of the web is that good graphic designers create XHTML by hand, and giving good designers control only of the CSS (like in seaside 2.8) isn't nearly enough. I think everyone should spend an afternoon reading articles on 'a list apart' to start to understand that there are intelligent people who devote lots of time to hand-coding "beautiful html." And take a look at the design openings on 'authentic jobs' to see that there are web design companies that pay lots of money for this specific skill. These people aren't stupid, just different; after all, if one can make a beautiful shoe, why not, in principle, beautiful html? The significance of the word "beautiful" is that we've got a different but legitimate alternative aesthetic perspective, a different community; and Seaside, in its current form, is wholly incompatible with this design-oriented community. Consider that RoR was written by a guy who works with graphic designers all day; he was aware of this fundamental web dichotomy. I think that most smalltalkers come from a very different background (traditional non-web programming), with a very different set of assumptions. I'm not attacking or judging these differences, only pointing out that critically analyzing them is crucial if seaside is going to be useful in commercial web development. Right now, it's not. I also want to mention that one of the best things about the web is that it's a true crossover field, which computer science ceased to be a generation ago: nobody gets a 'web sciences' degree (yet). Instead, there are web designers with backgrounds in print design, print/TV advertising, copywriting, or graphic design, and they're all learning to work with programmers of all stripes who have moved to web programming. It's an exciting and still young (fast evolving) field. And just as the deeper aspects of design are only just starting to appear on the web--typography on the web is in absolute primitive infancy, while in print it's been established for hundreds of years; grid-based design is finally coming into the open as well--so the deeper aspects of programming (patterns/reusability, XP/agile, true OOP) are in their web-infancy too. The smalltalk community is one of those deep mines of knowledge that could enrich web culture with the mature perspective that decades of experience bring--but it's going to take some flexibility from the smalltalkers. To be honest, I don't see that flexibility in the community, and I think it's the make-or-break question: if the good old way of programming isn't 100% appropriate on the web, is there interest in exploring the new thing? Or is the interest in trying to force the new thing to fit the old way? Right now, I think Seaside is much closer to the latter. I sincerely hope that someone can enlighten me as to how seaside is, or is planning to become, accommodating for designers who hand-code XHTML, and the web design agencies that employ them. This is only the first hurdle, but it is I think the toughest, because it requires a fundamental change in perspective. I started studying smalltalk, and have kept at it, because it solves the problem of making sense of the conceptually muddled third-hand OOP of PHP (which I use at work); smalltalk is a profound language, constructed with powerful and simple metaphors, and nothing would make me happier than to do all my programming in it. I want seaside to take me there. Right now, it can't--but it could. Without templating, or some equivalent acknowledgment of the values and needs of the design field, it most certainly never will. - Jared ----- Original Message ---- From: Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]> To: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]> Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:46:43 AM Subject: Re: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0 Yes, I think this is the key point. I think there's a general consensus among most Seaside developers at this point that we prefer not having a template engine. I hesitate to make a blanket statement such as "templates are bad", though, and as Colin said various template systems have existed. When we started writing Seaside 2 (and again during the first few successive minor releases), we concentrated on ensuring a layered architecture. The goal was to allow people to use many of the layers independently of each other and for alternatives to some of the layers to develop. In the end, this hasn't really been exercised much but I'm sure the boundaries are still defined enough for an interested party to easily develop a template system (or resurrect Nori). If that layering has become less defined somewhere and prevents doing so, I'm sure there would be support for correcting that. Julian On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Marcin Tustin <[hidden email]> wrote: > If seaside is truly capable of being integrated with external libraries (and > I cast no doubt on this), then it should be possible for the enthusiasts for > templates to resurrect the template system, or write their own. > > On 7/12/08, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: >> >> > >> > I was talking about html templates, because, they are easier >> >> > to build, and read, with css, than the seaside concepts, I think. >> >> >> Then I agree with Colin, templates are a step backwards, been there, done >> that, glad we've moved beyond it. Templates were never a good idea >> because >> they force you to mix in some kind of code in with them to do anything at >> all interesting, even a simple grid full of data requires at a minimum a >> loop construct and html is a horrible syntax for a programming >> language. If >> Smalltalk code is capable of representing the exact same data structures >> as >> html is, then we don't need html, and the tools for dealing with code are >> vastly superior to the tools for dealing with html. Seaside's throwing >> out >> templates is one of its best and most bold features. >> >> >> Ramon Leon >> http://onsmalltalk.com >> >> _______________________________________________ >> seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Jared Hirsch <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Consider that RoR was written by a guy who works with graphic designers all day; he was aware of this fundamental web dichotomy. I think that most smalltalkers come from a very different background (traditional non-web programming), with a very different set of assumptions. I'm not attacking or judging these differences, only pointing out that critically analyzing them is crucial if seaside is going to be useful in commercial web development. Right now, it's not. Regardless of where most Smalltalkers come from, the developers of Seaside all come from a background of professional web development, and learned web development first and Smalltalk second. So whatever else you want to attribute this to, a lack of experience with the web isn't it. For what it's worth: I was primarily responsible for Seaside's move away from templates towards programmatic HTML generation, and I work in Seaside with a professional web designer of exactly the stripe you describe, every day. In practice, the way it breaks down is this: the web designer hand codes the HTML, along with the CSS, in a mockup. He is responsible for the specification, essentially, of what HTML will be generated, and he cares, as you explain very well, about the HTML being beautiful. I translate this to programmatic generation, refactoring as I go - I am responsible for implementing abstractions that match his HTML. Very occasionally, I will change his HTML in order to make *my* code more beautiful, ie, to make the abstractions simpler. But this is rare. The longer we work on the same project, the faster this translation process is: a new mockup for a different page may have very different content and CSS, but the same basic patterns will appear in the HTML, and I can reuse the abstractions I already built. The CSS is also iterated much, much more frequently than the HTML: he might commit tweaks to the CSS several times a day, but is unlikely to ask me to make a modification to the HTML more than once a week. Maybe this workflow isn't for everyone, but it may help you to understand where Seaside comes from: not from a lack of understanding or respect for the web designer's craft, but just from a different approach to the problem of coordinating these two very important aspects of web development. Avi _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: thoughts on Seaside 3.0
|
|
In reply to this post by Jared Hirsch
>>>>> "Jared" == Jared Hirsch <[hidden email]> writes:
Jared> The reality of the web is that good graphic designers create XHTML by Jared> hand, and giving good designers control only of the CSS (like in Jared> seaside 2.8) isn't nearly enough. I think everyone should spend an Jared> afternoon reading articles on 'a list apart' to start to understand Jared> that there are intelligent people who devote lots of time to Jared> hand-coding "beautiful html." And take a look at the design openings Jared> on 'authentic jobs' to see that there are web design companies that Jared> pay lots of money for this specific skill. Yes, but if you look at each of those designs, you see that the "semantics" are provided by relatively simple items (div here, ul there) and class-tagged so that the interesting work (the "presentation") can happen in the CSS. I take back what I said a few days ago about a templating system. I do believe we need to keep semantics and smalltalk closely knit, and let the styling come through a separate channel. -- Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095 <[hidden email]> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/> Smalltalk/Perl/Unix consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc. See http://methodsandmessages.vox.com/ for Smalltalk and Seaside discussion _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Avi Bryant-2
> In practice, the way it breaks down is this: the web designer hand
> codes the HTML, along with the CSS, in a mockup. He is responsible > for the specification, essentially, of what HTML will be generated, > and he cares, as you explain very well, about the HTML being > beautiful. > > I translate this to programmatic generation, refactoring as I go - I > am responsible for implementing abstractions that match his HTML. > Very occasionally, I will change his HTML in order to make *my* code > more beautiful, ie, to make the abstractions simpler. But this is > rare. > > The longer we work on the same project, the faster this translation > process is: a new mockup for a different page may have very different > content and CSS, but the same basic patterns will appear in the HTML, > and I can reuse the abstractions I already built. > > The CSS is also iterated much, much more frequently than the HTML: he > might commit tweaks to the CSS several times a day, but is unlikely to > ask me to make a modification to the HTML more than once a week. Ditto, once the programmer figures out the style of html the designer likes and what things he likes to be tagged with id's or given class names, the programmer can abstract these things and the workflow becomes much smoother. I also let the designer build the initial HTML mock up when I then translate to Seaside. Initially, there's some effort required with programmer and designer learning to work with each other, but when isn't that the case with any two people? As with Avi, these days I get maybe 1 or 2 requests a month to make very minor changes to the html because my site has to support many different skins for different clients and the designer learned very quickly that this only works if he confines his changes to CSS. Changing the HTML for every skin won't work, it'll break his other skins. I think this was a valuable lesson in abstraction for him that more designers need to learn. "The reality of the web is that good graphic designers create XHTML by hand, and giving good designers control only of the CSS (like in seaside 2.8) isn't nearly enough." That might be your reality, it isn't mine. I'll let them create their HTML, they just don't get to own or maintain it, HTML doesn't offer them the necessary tools to do it properly, only code does, and that's why HTML generation belong in the code where it's reusable and maintainable. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jared Hirsch
Well, I want to say something on this: I have worked by eight years on
web-applications, and one of the main reasons I love seaside is because of his lack of templates, and I have many reasons: 1) The whole thing about "UI designers can take care about the ui-specific-program details, but programmers can't take care about the UI stuff is a bunch of crap: most of the ui-designers can't program, and guess what? web-applications need programming in the UI side. 2) When you use a templating system, UI-designers use cut&paste technics for produce his pages, and of course, this ends with lots of bad-designed (in programing terms) pages and presentation stuff who nobody can or want to mantain. 3) well designed programs works as Avi described before me: a designer just need to change CSS most of the time, and sometimes a little change in HTML... this path requires much less effort that the other (who is enforced by html templates): designer changes templates and programmers adapt his sources to the changes. 4) templates work against code reusability So, *please* stay away of templates for seaside. Thanks, Esteban On 2008-07-14 14:10:26 -0300, Jared Hirsch <[hidden email]> said: > I've been lurking in the squeak/seaside lists for a while, and feel I > should add to the discussion of new features for a possible seaside 3.0. > > The major obstacle that I see to further adoption and growth of seaside > is widespread community ignorance of the design side of web > development. This has to do with templates, but it runs much, much > deeper. > > The html templates issue has two sides. From a design standpoint, > burying html inside smalltalk leads to opposite but equal > maintainability problems and inelegant html code. > The reality of the web is that good graphic designers create XHTML by > hand, and giving good designers control only of the CSS (like in > seaside 2.8) isn't nearly enough. I think everyone should spend an > afternoon reading articles on 'a list apart' to start to understand > that there are intelligent people who devote lots of time to > hand-coding "beautiful html." And take a look at the design openings on > 'authentic jobs' to see that there are web design companies that pay > lots of money for this specific skill. > These people aren't stupid, just different; after all, if one can > make a beautiful shoe, why not, in principle, beautiful html? The > significance of the word "beautiful" is that we've got a different but > legitimate alternative aesthetic perspective, a different community; > and Seaside, in its current form, is wholly incompatible with this > design-oriented community. > > Consider that RoR was written by a guy who works with graphic designers > all day; he was aware of this fundamental web dichotomy. I think that > most smalltalkers come from a very different background (traditional > non-web programming), with a very different set of assumptions. I'm not > attacking or judging these differences, only pointing out that > critically analyzing them is crucial if seaside is going to be useful > in commercial web development. Right now, it's not. > > I also want to mention that one of the best things about the web is > that it's a true crossover field, which computer science ceased to be a > generation ago: nobody gets a 'web sciences' degree (yet). Instead, > there are web designers with backgrounds in print design, print/TV > advertising, copywriting, or graphic design, and they're all learning > to work with programmers of all stripes who have moved to web > programming. It's an exciting and still young (fast evolving) field. > And just as the deeper aspects of design are only just starting to > appear on the web--typography on the web is in absolute primitive > infancy, while in print it's been established for hundreds of years; > grid-based design is finally coming into the open as well--so the > deeper aspects of programming (patterns/reusability, XP/agile, true > OOP) are in their web-infancy too. > The smalltalk community is one of those deep mines of knowledge that > could enrich web culture with the mature perspective that decades of > experience bring--but it's going to take some flexibility from the > smalltalkers. To be honest, I don't see that flexibility in the > community, and I think it's the make-or-break question: if the good old > way of programming isn't 100% appropriate on the web, is there interest > in exploring the new thing? Or is the interest in trying to force the > new thing to fit the old way? Right now, I think Seaside is much closer > to the latter. > > I sincerely hope that someone can enlighten me as to how seaside is, or > is planning to become, accommodating for designers who hand-code XHTML, > and the web design agencies that employ them. This is only the first > hurdle, but it is I think the toughest, because it requires a > fundamental change in perspective. > I started studying smalltalk, and have kept at it, because it solves > the problem of making sense of the conceptually muddled third-hand OOP > of PHP (which I use at work); smalltalk is a profound language, > constructed with powerful and simple metaphors, and nothing would make > me happier than to do all my programming in it. I want seaside to take > me there. Right now, it can't--but it could. Without templating, or > some equivalent acknowledgment of the values and needs of the design > field, it most certainly never will. - Jared > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]> > To: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]> > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:46:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0 > > Yes, I think this is the key point. I think there's a general > consensus among most Seaside developers at this point that we prefer > not having a template engine. I hesitate to make a blanket statement > such as "templates are bad", though, and as Colin said various > template systems have existed. > > When we started writing Seaside 2 (and again during the first few > successive minor releases), we concentrated on ensuring a layered > architecture. The goal was to allow people to use many of the layers > independently of each other and for alternatives to some of the layers > to develop. > > In the end, this hasn't really been exercised much but I'm sure the > boundaries are still defined enough for an interested party to easily > develop a template system (or resurrect Nori). If that layering has > become less defined somewhere and prevents doing so, I'm sure there > would be support for correcting that. > > Julian > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Marcin Tustin <[hidden email]> wrote: >> If seaside is truly capable of being integrated with external libraries (and >> I cast no doubt on this), then it should be possible for the enthusiasts for >> templates to resurrect the template system, or write their own. >> >> On 7/12/08, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I was talking about html templates, because, they are easier >>> >>>> to build, and read, with css, than the seaside concepts, I think. >>> >>> >>> Then I agree with Colin, templates are a step backwards, been there, done >>> that, glad we've moved beyond it. Templates were never a good idea >>> because >>> they force you to mix in some kind of code in with them to do anything at >>> all interesting, even a simple grid full of data requires at a minimum a >>> loop construct and html is a horrible syntax for a programming >>> language. If >>> Smalltalk code is capable of representing the exact same data structures >>> as >>> html is, then we don't need html, and the tools for dealing with code are >>> vastly superior to the tools for dealing with html. Seaside's throwing >>> out >>> templates is one of its best and most bold features. >>> >>> >>> Ramon Leon >>> http://onsmalltalk.com >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> seaside mailing list >>> [hidden email] >>> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> seaside mailing list >> [hidden email] >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside >> >> > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: Re: thoughts on Seaside 3.0
|
|
Dear folks, I worked in web application since cgi's time, and I'm fully agree with Esteban.
Ofcourse, convert a design made in Photo Shop to seaside(like the designer o customers wish,) is a lot of work, but al last is the better way to do and mantenin the thinks. Bad design (in programing terms) may be a disaters for the applications. I repeat. *please* stay away of templates for seaside. PD: may be in a plug-in but not in the core of seaside.
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 3:33 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[hidden email]> wrote: Well, I want to say something on this: I have worked by eight years on web-applications, and one of the main reasons I love seaside is because of his lack of templates, and I have many reasons: _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Jared Hirsch
Ramon, Avi - what you're saying makes a lot of sense. I hope I didn't come off as a jerk, which is so easy to do on the internets. I know Smalltalk pretty well, and I'm getting to know Seaside, but haven't deployed a big project with it yet--one big reason being the concerns I outlined in my previous message. Your responses were really helpful and encouraging.
----- Original Message ---- From: Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> To: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]> Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 2:08:32 PM Subject: RE: [Seaside] thoughts on Seaside 3.0 > In practice, the way it breaks down is this: the web designer hand > codes the HTML, along with the CSS, in a mockup. He is responsible > for the specification, essentially, of what HTML will be generated, > and he cares, as you explain very well, about the HTML being > beautiful. > > I translate this to programmatic generation, refactoring as I go - I > am responsible for implementing abstractions that match his HTML. > Very occasionally, I will change his HTML in order to make *my* code > more beautiful, ie, to make the abstractions simpler. But this is > rare. > > The longer we work on the same project, the faster this translation > process is: a new mockup for a different page may have very different > content and CSS, but the same basic patterns will appear in the HTML, > and I can reuse the abstractions I already built. > > The CSS is also iterated much, much more frequently than the HTML: he > might commit tweaks to the CSS several times a day, but is unlikely to > ask me to make a modification to the HTML more than once a week. Ditto, once the programmer figures out the style of html the designer likes and what things he likes to be tagged with id's or given class names, the programmer can abstract these things and the workflow becomes much smoother. I also let the designer build the initial HTML mock up when I then translate to Seaside. Initially, there's some effort required with programmer and designer learning to work with each other, but when isn't that the case with any two people? As with Avi, these days I get maybe 1 or 2 requests a month to make very minor changes to the html because my site has to support many different skins for different clients and the designer learned very quickly that this only works if he confines his changes to CSS. Changing the HTML for every skin won't work, it'll break his other skins. I think this was a valuable lesson in abstraction for him that more designers need to learn. "The reality of the web is that good graphic designers create XHTML by hand, and giving good designers control only of the CSS (like in seaside 2.8) isn't nearly enough." That might be your reality, it isn't mine. I'll let them create their HTML, they just don't get to own or maintain it, HTML doesn't offer them the necessary tools to do it properly, only code does, and that's why HTML generation belong in the code where it's reusable and maintainable. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
RE: thoughts on Seaside 3.0
|
|
In reply to this post by Jared Hirsch
Hi Jared,
Nice you wrote that! I think I understand the problem you are exposing. To give you a short answer: templates is to internet what boxes of movable types is to printers (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movable_type). Extrapolating the same line of thinking: using html generation from code is like entering the digital era of printing but for web design. Seaside works with html generation from code. That's power to scale complexity. If you want to make "templates of code which generates html" you use meta things like Magritte. I don't like that path because it demands the developer to be too much abstract for my taste. Movable types are valid even today for simple layout but for complex ones I suspect you don't even consider them. My app layouts look simple when rendered but, dynamism aside, I cant imagine a person having to do the html which renders some pages. In my "untemplated" approach but one can say I do use a sort of "templates": illustrator drafts. People could laugh but it works. I just use them as a cheap way to have interface feedback asap including style and design principles for that app. Then I get the opinion of a professional on the printed pages. When satisfied, I implement them. That's because I don't want to make my app "go trhough the movable type technology" in any stage. I want to stay all digial: from illustrator to WARendererCanvas. The art is to be the person in the middle :) cheers, Sebastian Sastre > -----Mensaje original----- > De: [hidden email] > [mailto:[hidden email]] En nombre > de Jared Hirsch > Enviado el: Lunes, 14 de Julio de 2008 14:10 > Para: [hidden email] > Asunto: [Seaside] thoughts on Seaside 3.0 > > I've been lurking in the squeak/seaside lists for a while, > and feel I should add to the discussion of new features for a > possible seaside 3.0. > > The major obstacle that I see to further adoption and growth > of seaside is widespread community ignorance of the design > side of web development. This has to do with templates, but > it runs much, much deeper. > > The html templates issue has two sides. From a design > standpoint, burying html inside smalltalk leads to opposite > but equal maintainability problems and inelegant html code. > The reality of the web is that good graphic designers > create XHTML by hand, and giving good designers control only > of the CSS (like in seaside 2.8) isn't nearly enough. I think > everyone should spend an afternoon reading articles on 'a > list apart' to start to understand that there are intelligent > people who devote lots of time to hand-coding "beautiful > html." And take a look at the design openings on 'authentic > jobs' to see that there are web design companies that pay > lots of money for this specific skill. > These people aren't stupid, just different; after all, if > one can make a beautiful shoe, why not, in principle, > beautiful html? The significance of the word "beautiful" is > that we've got a different but legitimate alternative > aesthetic perspective, a different community; and Seaside, in > its current form, is wholly incompatible with this > design-oriented community. > > Consider that RoR was written by a guy who works with graphic > designers all day; he was aware of this fundamental web > dichotomy. I think that most smalltalkers come from a very > different background (traditional non-web programming), with > a very different set of assumptions. I'm not attacking or > judging these differences, only pointing out that critically > analyzing them is crucial if seaside is going to be useful in > commercial web development. Right now, it's not. > > I also want to mention that one of the best things about the > web is that it's a true crossover field, which computer > science ceased to be a generation ago: nobody gets a 'web > sciences' degree (yet). Instead, there are web designers with > backgrounds in print design, print/TV advertising, > copywriting, or graphic design, and they're all learning to > work with programmers of all stripes who have moved to web > programming. It's an exciting and still young (fast evolving) field. > And just as the deeper aspects of design are only just > starting to appear on the web--typography on the web is in > absolute primitive infancy, while in print it's been > established for hundreds of years; grid-based design is > finally coming into the open as well--so the deeper aspects > of programming (patterns/reusability, XP/agile, true OOP) are > in their web-infancy too. > The smalltalk community is one of those deep mines of > knowledge that could enrich web culture with the mature > perspective that decades of experience bring--but it's going > to take some flexibility from the smalltalkers. To be honest, > I don't see that flexibility in the community, and I think > it's the make-or-break question: if the good old way of > programming isn't 100% appropriate on the web, is there > interest in exploring the new thing? Or is the interest in > trying to force the new thing to fit the old way? Right now, > I think Seaside is much closer to the latter. > > I sincerely hope that someone can enlighten me as to how > seaside is, or is planning to become, accommodating for > designers who hand-code XHTML, and the web design agencies > that employ them. This is only the first hurdle, but it is I > think the toughest, because it requires a fundamental change > in perspective. > I started studying smalltalk, and have kept at it, because > it solves the problem of making sense of the conceptually > muddled third-hand OOP of PHP (which I use at work); > smalltalk is a profound language, constructed with powerful > and simple metaphors, and nothing would make me happier than > to do all my programming in it. I want seaside to take me > there. Right now, it can't--but it could. Without templating, > or some equivalent acknowledgment of the values and needs of > the design field, it most certainly never will. - Jared > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Julian Fitzell <[hidden email]> > To: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]> > Sent: Sunday, July 13, 2008 9:46:43 AM > Subject: Re: [Seaside] About Seaside 3.0 > > Yes, I think this is the key point. I think there's a general > consensus among most Seaside developers at this point that we prefer > not having a template engine. I hesitate to make a blanket statement > such as "templates are bad", though, and as Colin said various > template systems have existed. > > When we started writing Seaside 2 (and again during the first few > successive minor releases), we concentrated on ensuring a layered > architecture. The goal was to allow people to use many of the layers > independently of each other and for alternatives to some of the layers > to develop. > > In the end, this hasn't really been exercised much but I'm sure the > boundaries are still defined enough for an interested party to easily > develop a template system (or resurrect Nori). If that layering has > become less defined somewhere and prevents doing so, I'm sure there > would be support for correcting that. > > Julian > > On Sun, Jul 13, 2008 at 10:47 AM, Marcin Tustin > <[hidden email]> wrote: > > If seaside is truly capable of being integrated with > external libraries (and > > I cast no doubt on this), then it should be possible for > the enthusiasts for > > templates to resurrect the template system, or write their own. > > > > On 7/12/08, Ramon Leon <[hidden email]> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I was talking about html templates, because, they are easier > >> > >> > to build, and read, with css, than the seaside concepts, I think. > >> > >> > >> Then I agree with Colin, templates are a step backwards, > been there, done > >> that, glad we've moved beyond it. Templates were never a good idea > >> because > >> they force you to mix in some kind of code in with them to > do anything at > >> all interesting, even a simple grid full of data requires > at a minimum a > >> loop construct and html is a horrible syntax for a programming > >> language. If > >> Smalltalk code is capable of representing the exact same > data structures > >> as > >> html is, then we don't need html, and the tools for > dealing with code are > >> vastly superior to the tools for dealing with html. > Seaside's throwing > >> out > >> templates is one of its best and most bold features. > >> > >> > >> Ramon Leon > >> http://onsmalltalk.com > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> seaside mailing list > >> [hidden email] > >> http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > seaside mailing list > > [hidden email] > > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > > > > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Ramon Leon-5
I wish I could believe this. I recently put out a call for a "CSS
Savvy web designer" and I got quite a few submissions. I have been plowing through the portfolios and sample work and the bottom line is, out of over 100 designer submissions, 3 were "mostly" properly CSS driven. The industry just doesn't seem to be there. (And if anyone has a CSS savvy web developer in the Seattle area he'd like to recommend, I'm all ears). On Jul 14, 2008, at 11:08 AM, Ramon Leon wrote: > Ditto, once the programmer figures out the style of html the > designer likes > and what things he likes to be tagged with id's or given class > names, the > programmer can abstract these things and the workflow becomes much > smoother. > I also let the designer build the initial HTML mock up when I then > translate > to Seaside. Initially, there's some effort required with programmer > and > designer learning to work with each other, but when isn't that the > case with > any two people? _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
Todd Blanchard wrote:
> I wish I could believe this. I recently put out a call for a "CSS > Savvy web designer" and I got quite a few submissions. I have been > plowing through the portfolios and sample work and the bottom line is, > out of over 100 designer submissions, 3 were "mostly" properly CSS > driven. > > The industry just doesn't seem to be there. (And if anyone has a CSS > savvy web developer in the Seattle area he'd like to recommend, I'm > all ears). That's been my observation as well. So, Todd, what is your solution/suggestion? To try to retrain the entire industry? :-) Or to search out for that elusive "CSS Savvy web designer"? Or do you have any thoughts about how to better integrate web designing into the Seaside flow? I really don't know what to do. But your observation above is pretty much spot on with my own observations. And it's a *hard* problem for me. Nevin _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by tblanchard
> I wish I could believe this. I recently put out a call for a "CSS
> Savvy web designer" and I got quite a few submissions. I have been > plowing through the portfolios and sample work and the bottom > line is, out of over 100 designer submissions, 3 were "mostly" properly CSS > driven. I did say... "Initially, there's some effort required with programmer and designer learning to work with each other". More specifically, *some effort* actually entailed me teaching the designer to learn to use CSS properly and showing him how to translate his HTML idioms into CSS idioms. CSS is a language and it's trivial for a programmer to pick up. What the designer has that the programmer tends to lack, is taste. Teach them how to express their taste in CSS and show them how it's actually less work than doing so in HTML, and they'll be on board. If you're looking for the right people, how you look makes all the difference in the world. Don't ask for CSS savvy people, people lie, a lot, even to themselves. Instead test for CSS savvy people. Put out a simple HTML document on the web, then advertise for a designer by asking for them to submit a style sheet for it, showing off their skills and taste. The fakers and wannabe's won't apply, instead of looking through 100 resumes and portfolios, you'll be looking through half a dozen, from people who actually have the chops and think your test is absurdly simple. I wouldn't hire a programmer without him submitting sample code for a trivial test of his skills, and I'd apply the same rational to a designer. Anyone who says no to a simple test, doesn't have the chops you're looking for anyway. Ramon Leon http://onsmalltalk.com _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by Nevin Pratt
I don't have one just now. I was hoping someone would jump in with
"oh no, you just gotta look over here where the good people are see and bob's your uncle".... :-) I have no solution other than to try to educate the masses (a bit like boiling the ocean though). I mean, the guy I'm stuck with now, I pointed him to a tutorial on a list apart for how to chop up box borders for his zany shaded round cornered boxes. It took him 2 weeks and nearly a dozen tries to come up with an image set I could use. Maybe I'm just whining, its been that kind of project. Just saying, its not as easy as many are making out. On Jul 14, 2008, at 4:36 PM, Nevin Pratt wrote: > So, Todd, what is your solution/suggestion? _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
|
|
In reply to this post by tblanchard
On Jul 14, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Todd Blanchard wrote: > I wish I could believe this. I recently put out a call for a "CSS > Savvy web designer" and I got quite a few submissions. I have been > plowing through the portfolios and sample work and the bottom line > is, out of over 100 designer submissions, 3 were "mostly" properly > CSS driven. > > The industry just doesn't seem to be there. (And if anyone has a CSS > savvy web developer in the Seattle area he'd like to recommend, I'm > all ears). Ha. Send me the NYC ones. _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
Re: thoughts on Seaside 3.0
|
|
In reply to this post by Jared Hirsch
Find blogs of designers who care about css and standards and start emailing. Chances are they are willing to do contract work or know people. _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
RE: thoughts on Seaside 3.0
|
|
http://gigs.37signals.com/
http://jobs.37signals.com/ http://www.authenticjobs.com/ -Boris -- +1.604.689.0322 DeepCove Labs Ltd. 4th floor 595 Howe Street Vancouver, Canada V6C 2T5 http://tinyurl.com/r7uw4 [hidden email] CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE This email is intended only for the persons named in the message header. Unless otherwise indicated, it contains information that is private and confidential. If you have received it in error, please notify the sender and delete the entire message including any attachments. Thank you. > -----Original Message----- > From: [hidden email] [mailto:seaside- > [hidden email]] On Behalf Of Boris Popov > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 5:50 PM > To: [hidden email] > Subject: Re: [Seaside] thoughts on Seaside 3.0 > > Find blogs of designers who care about css and standards and start > emailing. Chances are they are willing to do contract work or know people. > > Cheers! > > -Boris (via BlackBerry) > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: [hidden email] <seaside- > [hidden email]> > To: Seaside - general discussion <[hidden email]> > Sent: Mon Jul 14 17:46:55 2008 > Subject: Re: [Seaside] thoughts on Seaside 3.0 > > > On Jul 14, 2008, at 6:24 PM, Todd Blanchard wrote: > > > I wish I could believe this. I recently put out a call for a "CSS > > Savvy web designer" and I got quite a few submissions. I have been > > plowing through the portfolios and sample work and the bottom line > > is, out of over 100 designer submissions, 3 were "mostly" properly > > CSS driven. > > > > The industry just doesn't seem to be there. (And if anyone has a CSS > > savvy web developer in the Seattle area he'd like to recommend, I'm > > all ears). > > Ha. Send me the NYC ones. > > _______________________________________________ > seaside mailing list > [hidden email] > http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside > _______________________________________________ seaside mailing list [hidden email] http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/seaside |
«
Return to Seaside General
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |