Style Changer ... was .... Re: [thesite] test.evolt.org change fyi

[aardvark]

> From: "Michele Foster" <michele at wordpro.on.ca>
>
> Let's start with a new subject line .... ;)

woo!

> I think you are (a) confused or (b) misinformed .. in a good way of
> course. Let me explain.

a) yes, b) yes, c) talking about something else...

> First of all, there is NO style changer currently built that is in use
> .. not the way you are referring to one anyway.

correct... i was referring to the one .jeff was working on... it allowed 
users to customize *every* aspect of the CSS, thereby eliminating 
any inter-relation between elements or styles...

> Background:  Several months ago, we knew we were getting "low" on new
> style schemes for new evolt projects.  So, a call went out to those
> members on thesite to create some new colour schemes.  The files were
> available as a download (you might remember I gave the wrong files at
> first).  No guidelines or anything were given .. it was just, go for
> it .. play with colour, have fun .. create something.

right, this part i know, i took part in it and tried to show people how 
to use the comments in the CSS as guidelines, but that they could 
still go to town...

but that's not what i was talking about...

> Old info ... not of real importance.
> 
> However, now what we've got is .... Dan and Jeff have added an "Edit
> Membership" link to t.e.o.  The only thing there at the moment is
> choosing a different style.  All of those CSS files are static .. they
> were randomly chosen from the ones that were created during the "let's
> have fun with colour" exercise above.  They were never verified, nor
> "approved" to meet the requirements for evolt's CMS.

got that, i was part of that...

> There is no random style changer.  There isn't anything in place that,
> programmatically, could show the editors of the CSS files what should
> be the same colour, font or whatever within the various classes.

well, no, not yet... frankly i don't know if .jeff's style changer was 
abandoned (i thought it wasn't, which has been much of my point of 
reference)...

> Now, I think when the exercise was first introduced, more background
> should have been given.  People should have been informed how to work
> with the CSS files, how to maintain the original consistency, what
> exactly all those "comments" meant, etc.  I'm only now, digging
> deeper, understanding exactly what it is you meant with those comments
> in the files and how each piece impacts another.

i sent out a notice to explain that part... granted it may not have 
been clear enough, but nobody indicated it wasn't...

> So, I think we are in a situation now where we can say "to heck with
> the original intent" .. or we can say, "let's clean up the proposed
> CSS files for use, and make sure they keep the original intent" as
> you've commented in your CSS files.

sure

> THEN .. if and when a real programmable CSS style changer is built, we
> can continue on with the hard work and careful consideration you've
> already given to maintaining consistency within the CSS's used for
> evolt.

erm, dunno 'bout that... we've already set a precedent...

> So, what say you ... should we go ad hoc now and allow anything and
> everything .. or is it much better to clean up the proposed CSS files
> and make sure that your original intent is still maintained?

it was (and still is) the latter, but we've already gone beyond that... 
i'm just trying to make sure that we don't continue to go beyond it 
to the point that we bloat our CSS or create truly unworkable stuff...

> Keep in mind .. the authors of the CSS files will be given the
> opportunity to say "yes, I still want my name associated with that CSS
> scheme", or "no, it changed too much from what I had in mind, please
> remove my name".

poor bastages...