Re: Website revamp?

["Bruce D'Arcus" <bdarcus@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3715 bytes --]

FWIW, I think this is a great idea!

On Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 10:45 AM TEC <tecosaur@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> Hello Russell, Amin,
>
> Thanks for giving me your thoughts on the idea :)
> Your responses have lead me to think that this may lead somewhere.
>
> Russell Adams <RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.Com> writes:
>
> > My feedback is that personally I don't care about trendy web
> > pages. I agree with you that adding JS to simple pages makes
> > them horrible.
>
> Oh absolutely. I don't want any of those JS-laden pages which load
> with:
> "We're sorry but this doesn't work properly without JavaScript
> enabled. Please enable it to continue."
> Urgh. No thanks.
>
> For org, a simple static page of HTML + CSS seems perfect, with
> perhaps the odd feature using JS - like copy code block buttons.
>
> > I would suggest though if you can use an Org-based html theme to
> > improve the site, that might be useful. It's always nice to be
> > able to self-create instead of using other tools.
>
> That would be ideal IMO. I'll see if I run into issues with an
> org-export based site.
>
> > I recently tried a read-the-docs theme exported from Org and
> > found it very nice, and nearly zero difficulty to integrate.
> > That surprised me.
>
> <plug>
> If you want another example, check out my config ;) ---
> https://tecosaur.github.io/emacs-config/config.html
> It's less light weight than what I'm conceptualising, but it's
> just produced by org-html-export-to-html ... with a few tweaks
> (ok, a lot).
> </plug>
>
> > Getting an Org site theme into core that'd do that, and make the
> > website export from that template could be a good idea. Or if
> > it's already done (I beg ignorance), perhaps updating that
> > template could be a good use of your time?
>
> I think this is what I'll look into first (pending Bastien's
> response, of course).
>
> Amin Bandali <bandali@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > Hello,
> Hi :)
>
> > While we wait for Bastien and others to chime in, per your
> > question in your original proposal email, if you have not seen
> > it already, the repository containing the sources for the
> > current Org website seems to be at
> > <https://code.orgmode.org/bzg/orgweb>.
>
> I wasn't aware of that! Thank you very much for bringing it to my
> attention.
>
> > If you have some time, perhaps consider making a quick demo of
> > one revamped page, to give folks an idea of what sort of changes
> > you imagine?
>
> I may just have a go at whipping up a 'revamped' index page, I'll
> let you all know how that goes.
>
> > I think the overall design of the Org website is fine, but it
> > could use well-thought out enhancements to make browsing around
> > and discovering things easier.  That said, I personally wouldn't
> > be opposed to a bit of a revamp, if the site continues to work
> > well without JS and continue to be accessible in text-based
> > browsers (like EWW and Lynx).
>
> As I said earlier, I see no reason for the Org site to be much
> more than a simple static page ... just in need of a bit of
> massaging into a more aesthetically pleasing shape.
>
> -----
>
> While this may seem like a relatively minor pursuit in the scheme
> of things, it is (or at least was in my case) the landing page for
> the feature that can draw one into Emacs.
>
> For the sake of curious individuals who aren't sure what to
> expect, I think it's worth some effort to make their first
> impression lean more towards "Org is a novel and exciting format,
> ahead of it's time" than "Org is some old and crufty format that
> hasn't received much love" :P
>
> While obviously that goes far beyond the styling of orgmode.org, I
> do honestly think that it plays a part.
>
> All the best,
>
> Timothy.
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4928 bytes --]