[Cc-webedit] Swoop as Past Action?

[Alistair Alexander]

While I completely understand why we've changed the layout, a change  
like this really should have got consensus on the list before being  
implemented.

My Personal view is that we should revert to the original layout.  I  
think having two main promos messes with the whole design, and,  
besides, soon we'll have to squeeze Copenhagen onto this page, not to  
mention the dozens of actions no doubt in the works for next year.

So we really need to think about having a list of past actions below  
the 4 smaller promos so we can continue to add to the page for the  
foreseeable future.

Alistair




On 18 Nov 2009, at 17:32, Jon Leighton wrote:

> Ok let's not get into a big pointless discussion. I said that I agreed
> with your change to the layout of the page, but that I would have  
> liked
> the web group to be consulted first. If we are working in a consensus
> group, that's important.
>
> With regard to "access", you have never asked for access to the code  
> of
> the website. I don't object to this so long as we have some sort of
> process about how changes are agreed and pushed to the live site. As I
> have pointed out before the code is all in a git version control  
> system,
> and you can browse it here: http://code.climatecamp.org.uk/ (login
> details on Crabgrass). If you want to get involved in the coding of  
> the
> site, perhaps we can discuss how that would work at the next meeting.
>
> Finally, I don't understand the "I don't like having to ask people  
> to do
> things for me" mentality. If we are a website *group* that implies we
> work together. Part of that is communicating and helping each other,  
> and
> if the end goal is the making the best website we can (as opposed to
> satisfying our egos) then I think it's important.
>
> Jon
>
> On Wed, 2009-11-18 at 11:43 -0500, neil wrote:
>> * I'm a bit unhappy about the fact that you changed the design of the
>> page from one big image to two smaller ones, without any consultation
>> with anyone else in the web group. In this case I think the change  
>> was a
>> sensible one, so I am not objecting to it per se, but I am definitely
>> objecting to the idea of just changing the design of pages which  
>> have a
>> very specific layout already defined.
>>
>> How would you have fitted the extra item in? I only did it because  
>> you
>> said you would do it, and didn't,  5 days previously.
>>
>> * I've changed the swoop image to the one we were using on the front
>> page, as there were previously objections to one you'd put up (of  
>> people
>> scaling fences)
>>
>> Fine. If people don't like fence climbing pictures then why is there
>> another one the same page?
>>
>> * In general, I'm surprised you went ahead and did this with inline  
>> CSS,
>> changing the style, without actually communicating with me (or the
>> group). If you wanted CSS changes we could have discussed that and
>> co-ordinated it, rather than doing a hack job and then asking me to
>> clean it up.
>>
>> I don't like having to ask people to do things for me. I asked you   
>> to
>> sort it out as soon as I did it. Such problems only arise because you
>> wont give me access.
>>
>> In peace Neil
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Cc-webedit mailing list
>> Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
>> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Cc-webedit mailing list
> Cc-webedit at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-webedit