Re: [uportal-dev] Proposal to use full-width Respondr theme in 4.1
We (UW) actually did this in our fork. I wasn't sure if the community would want it, but if you want to check it out its right here: https://github.com/UW-Madison-DoIT/uPortal/commit/82a109b33d4007b68586edd70b7800fbe2af217a Basically just changes container to container-fluid. We needed to do this because we added a custom region called global-sidebar-left which is for a slide out page level menu on medium/small screens. If others are interested I can post a PR on master for it. - Tim On 05-07-14, Drew Wills wrote: 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: lev...@wisc.edu 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
Re: [uportal-dev] Proposal to use full-width Respondr theme in 4.1
Alas, our MyUW repo is private, so that GitHub URL will be difficult for most folks to see. Here's that commit in .diff and .patch formats as a public Gist: https://gist.github.com/apetro/459fca11e2cd7c016eeb Andrew On 5/8/14, 8:27 AM, Tim Levett wrote: We (UW) actually did this in our fork. I wasn't sure if the community would want it, but if you want to check it out its right here: https://github.com/UW-Madison-DoIT/uPortal/commit/82a109b33d4007b68586edd70b7800fbe2af217a Basically just changes container to container-fluid. We needed to do this because we added a custom region called global-sidebar-left which is for a slide out page level menu on medium/small screens. If others are interested I can post a PR on master for it. - Tim On 05-07-14, Drew Wills wrote: 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? -- 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
I think this is a good change. We'd make this same change to our code base if it was a fixed width before deploying. On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:29 AM, Andrew Petro ape...@wisc.edu wrote: Alas, our MyUW repo is private, so that GitHub URL will be difficult for most folks to see. Here's that commit in .diff and .patch formats as a public Gist: https://gist.github.com/apetro/459fca11e2cd7c016eeb Andrew On 5/8/14, 8:27 AM, Tim Levett wrote: We (UW) actually did this in our fork. I wasn't sure if the community would want it, but if you want to check it out its right here: https://github.com/UW-Madison-DoIT/uPortal/commit/ 82a109b33d4007b68586edd70b7800fbe2af217a Basically just changes container to container-fluid. We needed to do this because we added a custom region called global-sidebar-left which is for a slide out page level menu on medium/small screens. If others are interested I can post a PR on master for it. - Tim On 05-07-14, Drew Wills wrote: 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? -- You are currently subscribed to uportal-dev@lists.ja-sig.org as: asgr...@oakland.edu To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev -- Aaron Grant Senior Applications Architect Oakland University - UTS http://oakland.edu/uts -- 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
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
