Re: A thought on Windows Experience

[David Kastrup]

Carl Peterson <address@hidden> writes:

> On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 9:09 PM, Tim McNamara <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Dec 4, 2013, at 6:18 PM, Phil Burfitt <address@hidden>
>> wrote:
>> > I also think lilypond's website is terrible. It looks like
>> > something out of the eighties knocked up on a dos machine. By
>> > comparison, take a look at the home pages of musescore, finale and
>> > sibelius.
>>
>> If you think that Lilypond's web page needs a facelift, then volunteer to
>> roll up your sleeves and help change it by writing text blocks, creating
>> better HTML, creating better graphics, etc.  There is no well-funded
>> corporation behind Lilypond, just a bunch of dedicated and amazingly
>> talented volunteer programmers.
>
>
> Where do I sign up and what do I need to know about the way the
> current site works? I cannot write a single line of C++, my Scheme
> skills are meager at best (limited mostly to taking existing code and
> tweaking parameters), and I've only looked into MetaFont enough to
> send a patch to Janek to review to refine the shape note parameters to
> deal with unsightly MI and SO noteheads. (speaking of which,
> Janek... :) ). But I can do web development.

One thing you have to realize that much of the content is created
programmatically with a uniform look and feel.  So much is contained in
style sheets, and most of the rest is basically hand-written fragments
combined by procedures.

Which, in comparison to the popular HTML authoring tools generating
oodles of garbage that fortunately nobody peruses closely, exactly
entails the workflows that would have been used for "something out of
the eighties knocked up on a dos machine".

So if you are versed with modern tools for web development, you may
easily be frustrated at just how little possibility there is for
employing them as you are used to do.

-- 
David Kastrup