Re: New LilyPond website

[Graham Percival]

The same information that's on the website is also produced in pdf
and info (a GNU/Linux documentation system).

I *strongly* encourage you to modify the existing lilypond.css file
and use the current HTML files, rather than trying to recreate the
texinfo from scratch.  Even if you want to eventually make more
drastic changes, it would be good to start off with something easy
and see how the process goes.  For example, these changes can
definitely be done simply by editing the CSS File:
- different font
- flat colors in the navbar
- more space around the boxes

I personally would start off with the navbar changes.  Produce the
patch, submit it, get it accepted, see lilypond.org updated with
your work -- and then start on another change.

Cheers,
- Graham

On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 07:48:53PM -0500, John Roper wrote:
> Why specifically do we *need* to use textinfo? If I could make a new
> system that would auto generate the docs that works with the current
> system would you use it?
> 
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:23 PM, John Roper <address@hidden> wrote:
> > What I had to do for the new design was create entirely new markup
> > from scratch. If it is not possible to use that, we have no new
> > design.
> >
> > On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:21 PM, John Roper <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> So, does texinfo create all the markup and you add the styling, or do
> >> you add some of the markup? If so, where is it?
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 7:07 PM, John Roper <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>> https://github.com/johnroper100/LilyPond-Web-Redesign
> >>>
> >>> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 6:55 PM, John Roper <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>> I am going to put the code in a GitHub repo for now so that I can keep 
> >>>> track
> >>>> of it.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Nov 30, 2016 6:53 PM, "John Roper" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I am prepared to take my design and start to convert it over to the text
> >>>>> info generator (at least on the home page).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Nov 30, 2016 6:29 PM, "Carl Sorensen" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On 11/30/16 2:58 PM, "Noeck" <address@hidden> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> >
> >>>>>> >I was a bit disappointed that the suggestions have narrowed down so
> >>>>>> >quickly to something so close to the old layout. But perhaps the 
> >>>>>> >chances
> >>>>>> >are better to get somewhere from there than to have ~10 to quickly ~50
> >>>>>> >completely different proposals.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Here's my view of the course of this discussion:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 1) John came up with a Wordpress layout.  (I never saw that layout,
> >>>>>> because it has been replaced with the new "just adjust the CSS" 
> >>>>>> lilypond
> >>>>>> example).
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 2) Some people expressed appreciation for the new layout; others
> >>>>>> expressed
> >>>>>> concerns about the technology.  John, in an impressive burst of work
> >>>>>> created multiple versions responding to people's concerns.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 3) Several users discussed preferences for the old design.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 4) Some developers chimed in about the desire/necessity to keep the
> >>>>>> website auto created and pointed out that it would be straightforward 
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>> change the CSS.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> 5) John followed that lead and jumped in with changes to the CSS.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It seems likely to me that we are not too far from having new CSS that
> >>>>>> can
> >>>>>> be added to the LilyPond source to make some incremental, but 
> >>>>>> significant
> >>>>>> improvements to the website.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Once John has worked on getting the new CSS implemented, he'll be in 
> >>>>>> much
> >>>>>> better shape to make recommendations for changes that are or can be 
> >>>>>> made
> >>>>>> consistent with our current infrastructure.  Such changes have a very
> >>>>>> high
> >>>>>> likelihood of implementation.  Since my time being involved with
> >>>>>> LilyPond,
> >>>>>> I can't remember a developer who proposed changes in the website that
> >>>>>> could be implemented in our current framework failing to get those
> >>>>>> changes
> >>>>>> adopted.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Changes that require shifting large parts of our current source (and by
> >>>>>> that I mean documents, not code) to some different infrastructure will 
> >>>>>> be
> >>>>>> met with skepticism by the development community, I believe.  Someone 
> >>>>>> who
> >>>>>> wants to have such changes made will need to shoulder most (or all) of
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>> burden to make those changes.  But if someone is willing to do that, 
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> the new infrastructure will support our translation process as well or
> >>>>>> better than our current infrastructure, I would expect those changes to
> >>>>>> eventually be implemented.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I hope John doesn't feel like he's had a negative response.  I believe
> >>>>>> he's had a response that points out the minefields he needs to avoid in
> >>>>>> order to get the website changed.  And it looks to me like he's jumping
> >>>>>> in
> >>>>>> and navigating the minefields, which I think is great.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Carl
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> John Roper
> >>> Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
> >>> Boston, MA USA
> >>> http://jmroper.com/
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Roper
> >> Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
> >> Boston, MA USA
> >> http://jmroper.com/
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > John Roper
> > Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
> > Boston, MA USA
> > http://jmroper.com/
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> John Roper
> Freelance Developer and Simulation Artist
> Boston, MA USA
> http://jmroper.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> lilypond-user mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user