>From: Joshua OIson > >Sorta. If Evolt is laid out in a manner constant with Jeff's methodology, >then the layout for evolt is driven by the app_design file. I believe that is the case. I haven't actually done any of the CF, so I can't verify 100%, but that sounds right. >the entire layout of the site switch to something that looks like your >"ideas page"--void of graphics save the image at the top left, a strict >enforcement of header/subheader levels, almost lack of tables. That's a good idea, but here are some things to remember: Currently there are only five other small graphic files on any given evolt.org page, all of them in the header except for the 1x1 spacer/shim gif. They total under 35k, so while removing all the graphics might save a second or two, it wouldn't save all that much versus the consistency and branding value of having it there. We try to be very consistent in the use of header levels, but we can't always control what somebody else is going to do in the HTML of an article. We can suggest, for sure. If you find a place outside of an article where we started a page with an <h2> (for example), let us know! >So, in essence, you are doing more than making css >sheets, you can offer more than one overall site design. That's a cool idea, Josh, and it might be possible, but you see how long it's taken just to get one style sheet done. I don't know if I can take another site design right now. ;) >You had an idea for making a contest to redesign evolt. You can then offer >the winning layout ideas as alternate skins, all toggleable through >format=whatever. I guess I need to clear that up. I wasn't referring to redesigning evolt. That idea was sparked by a couple of comments from some other folks. 1) that we do some reviews of other sites to add content to evolt, and 2) that somebody had run a contest to redesign useit.com. It's kind of a half-baked idea, and it'll prolly get shelved for right now. >If I completely misfired on how the underlying architecture is laid out, I >most humbly apologize. Well, I think you probably know the underlying architecture better than I do. :) And there's certainly no need to apologize.