Re: [uportal-dev] uPortal 4.1 RC1 soon

[Tim Levett]

UPDATE:

uportal-4.1.0-RC2 has been released (don’t worry about what happened to RC1).

Please log Jira’s and/or post a pull request if you find a bug.  

Many thanks to all that are involved, this is very exciting!

- Tim Levett
levettATwisc.edu


On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:59 AM, Tim Levett lev...@wisc.edu wrote:

 Greetings uPortal Developers,
 
 I am happy to announce that we are looking to finish up uPortal 4.1 RC1 
 within the next 2 weeks.  Please have all finalized pull requests posted as 
 soon as logically possible. We will most likely cut the release on May 5th or 
 6th.
 
 If you have any questions or concerns please let us know.
 
 Thanks,
 
 Tim Levett
 levettATwisc.edu



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: [uportal-dev] uPortal 4.1 RC1 soon

[Drew Wills]

On 05/07/2014 08:57 AM, Tim Levett wrote:

Many thanks to all that are involved, this is very exciting!


Yes it is!

I can't wait to show all the cool new stuff off at Open Apereo.

drew

--
You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: 
arch...@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev

Re: [uportal-dev] Proposal to use full-width Respondr theme in 4.1

[Drew Wills]

I am okay with the proposal.

FWIW I had previously been thinking we should talk about either going 
this direction or at least widening the fixed width.


drew

On 05/07/2014 10:42 AM, James Wennmacher wrote:

Hi,

I propose that we change the Respondr theme to be fluid width (e.g. full
width) instead of the fixed-width format where Bootstrap have a
fixed-width for the rows and centers the content in the viewport for
devices = 768px (see http://getbootstrap.com/css/#grid). We can
consider asking the uportal-user community, but from talking to a few
people it seems there was not a strong design decision to limit the
viewing to the fixed-widthshttp://getbootstrap.com/css/#grid.  I
personally have found it annoying and limiting.  Bootstrap's main site
uses fixed-width and so do many other bootstrap sites, but I'm told many
other bootstrap sites do not.

Advantages of full width:

  * Can display more information wider, especially with the
preponderance of wide-screen monitors where height is often limited
so you do more vertical scrolling.
  * With Bootstrap's general tendency to make items bigger so they are
more easily accessed by a finger on a mobile device, on a desktop
and some landscape-oriented tablets it would be helpful to have the
greater width to display content since you typically have 2 or more
columns.
  * Puts Respondr on-par with Universality in this aspect.

Disadvantages of full width:

  * If you are restricted to widths of 750px, 750px, 970px, and 1170px
it makes testing easier since you don't have to figure out how to
handle widths outside that restricted set.

To use full width is actually very easy.  We replace the class
'container' with 'container-fluid' on the markup generated by the XSL.
We could make it fairly easy to configure in the XSL with a default of
full width.

Thoughts?

--
James Wennmacher - Unicon
480.558.2420

--

You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: 
awi...@unicon.net
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev



--
You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: 
arch...@mail-archive.com
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see 
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev