This question is not answered. Helpful answers available: 2. Correct answers available: 1.


Permlink Replies: 4 - Pages: 1 - Last Post: 25 Jun 25, 14:02 Last Post By: JeffTucker Threads: [ Previous | Next ]
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,052
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Time to unbundle "Minimal"
Posted: 23 Jun 25, 00:18
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
It's time to unbundle Minimal.

The original intent of the Minimal skin was to provide a launching platform for skin development by hobbyists. It contained (and still contains) only a scattering of settings and features, mostly just to illustrate how it's done.

Those days are long gone, and it's time to stop pretending. Given the expectations for web sites today, developing a useful skin from a very basic HTML framework just isn't realistic. And in fact, to my knowledge no one has done so within living memory.

As if that weren't enough, the skin was never really intended to be used to create working albums, and I don't think any user should be doing that. Despite various (misguided) attempts to modernize the skin, it's still an anachronism. At this point, it doesn't even know what it's supposed to be. The slide pages look like something produced by a lightbox script, but they're not. They have no image-to-image transitions (not even the "pretend" ones that I use in my own slide page skins), and since it's not actually using a lightbox script, it can't do things like slideshows.

Bundling this skin encourages users to use it. They should be actively discouraged from doing so. A user who wants a simple, uncluttered layout should be steered towards Plain or Atom. And like Minimal, Atom is a true slide page skin, with a simple, unfussy layout. And unlike Minimal, it has a thought-out collection of settings for customizing, rather than a haphazard collection of things.

Unbundling Minimal is the least that should be done. If it were up to me, it would be shuffled off to the legacy bin. This is not a skin that showcases all the wonderful things that jAlbum can do.
davidekholm

Posts: 3,706
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: Time to unbundle "Minimal"
Posted: 24 Jun 25, 13:29   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I hear you. Votes?

Minimal is at least one of our few skins that don't require to be served from a server.

We shall gather some stats on skin usages as well I think
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,052
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Time to unbundle "Minimal"
Posted: 24 Jun 25, 14:16   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
davidekholm wrote:
Minimal is at least one of our few skins that don't require to be served from a server.

There are plenty of skins out there that aren't JSON-driven (like all of mine), including a few of the bundled skins - Animatics, Lucid, Split. Not a good enough reason to keep it around, IMO.

We shall gather some stats on skin usages as well I think

Yes, there are people using Minimal to make albums. But they shouldn't be. There are people using Chameleon, but that's not a reason to keep bundling it. ;)

(The whole question of stats on skin usage is problematic, anyway, since there are vast numbers of albums you never see, hosted elsewhere. That's why the "most used" category on the skins page is meaningless.)

It just seems to me that jAlbum now has a good selection of bundled skins without including Minimal, including Plain, which is geared towards producing a clean, simple layout.

Maybe bundle Zigzag, instead? That one does something truly different. It could use some development work, but....
davidekholm

Posts: 3,706
Registered: 18-Oct-2002
Re: Time to unbundle "Minimal"
Posted: 25 Jun 25, 12:31   in response to: JeffTucker in response to: JeffTucker
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
I can see a point in bundling Split instead later down the road. It's another skin we've developed that doesn't require a web server to serve it.
JeffTucker

Posts: 8,052
Registered: 31-Jan-2006
Re: Time to unbundle "Minimal"
Posted: 25 Jun 25, 13:59   in response to: davidekholm in response to: davidekholm
 
  Click to reply to this thread Reply
davidekholm wrote:
I can see a point in bundling Split instead later down the road.

Yes, much better choice.

I come at it from a different direction. In response to a user question, "I'm looking for a skin that will do X, Y, and Z," when would my answer ever be, "You should use Minimal." Never. ;)
Legend
Forum admins
Helpful Answer
Correct Answer

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in all forums