in which i go a bit mad with the screenshots

Um, thanks for updating Sandbox so I can now use my beloved span.meta-nav but if you want people to use it you might want to deminiaturise the code editor:

miniaturetextarea.gif

Weirdly, this doesn’t happen when you get to it through the standard ‘edit CSS’ tab, it’s just when you click on the redundant new link next to the screenshot:

pointlesslink.gif

I think my blog is the best place to report this because a) support is generally shut, b) nobody in the forum has backend access and c) it’s a trivial bug caused by clicking on a link that doesn’t need to be there in the first place, and is therefore sort of my own fault.

Also, can somebody with a better grasp of the semantic subtleties explain to me the distinction between ‘minimal’ and ‘minimalist’?

tautology.gif

While you’re at it, do you think you could explain why White as Milk isn’t considered ‘minimal’ or ‘minimalist’ even though it actually contains the word ‘minimal’ in the theme description? Where do these random tags even come from? I know Automattic don’t trust the mob but I’m fairly sure they could do a better job than this.

9 Comments »

  1. rayb said

    That’s certainly odd. Maybe there’ll be a point release to fix this sort of thing. It’s why we have open source after all.

    And a wank post with no links? Do mine eyes deceive me?

  2. drmiketemp said

    She took pictures of links. Isn’t that close enough?😉

  3. Also funny that there are more “minimal” themes than “minimalist” themes. So I guess you could say that the minimal themes are maximal.

  4. rayb said

    Surely minimal themes have very few elements, minimalist themes look as though they have few elements. Or am I overanalysing and no one who posts a theme owns a dictionary?

  5. You could make a case for that sort of distinction, yes; for example, Sandbox out-of-the-box is aesthetically minimal but markup-wise is nothing of the sort. I had to check out White As Milk to help someone out on the forum yesterday, though, and its code is as impoverished as its appearance (it doesn’t even have a div for the entry date, let alone a div class).

    So that’s not it. And the description of Twenty-Eight Thirteen actually calls it ‘minimalist’, yet it’s tagged as ‘minimal’ while Cutline gets to be ‘minimalist.’ It’s a mess. Whoever tagged these themes is using some whacked-out definition of the word ‘minimal’ unrecognisable to native speakers. Ocadia is not freaking minimal. You cannot be minimal and have curly flourishy bits. You could call it ‘monochrome’, but that implies black-and-white. I’d tag it with ‘elegant’, ’rounded’, and maybe ‘serif’.

    Somebody needs to give me access to the tagging interface. I’ve got a test blog to check out the themes and they won’t even have to pay me😉

  6. “impoverished”😈 I’ll have to remember that next time I’m ragging on something inapropriately minimalist.

  7. rayb said

    Now I’m just throwing this out there, hope it’s not too crazy and idea…. How about the ability to report mislabelled themes? We could even be able to suggest new ones. That is the beauty of GPL and openness isn’t it? Of course, that assumes a staff who are available to vet changes and want to listen and…..

  8. @sunburntkamel – “Depauperate” means the same thing, and can be deployed with even more devastating effect.

  9. The Edit CSS link on the theme page that was causing problems has been fixed now.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s