[22:15] <andrew_sayers> mdke: Needless to say, I disagree about IE6 with the site I linked to :)
[22:15] <mdke> ok
[22:15] <mdke> I don't think th comparison with firefox is a valid one
[22:15] <andrew_sayers> How so?
[22:16] <mdke> firefox respects web standards, and ie6 doesn't. More importantly, it has been superceded by ie7
[22:16] <mdke> it's not like it's an up and coming browser with a valid reason for people to keep making efforts to support it
[22:16] <mdke> especially if those efforts involve going out of one's way
[22:17] <mdke> as long as it works, and the site isn't broken, I'm happy
[22:17] <mdke> www.ubuntu.com has a number of substantial issues with IE6, and the approach was taken that as long as it is readable, it's ok
[22:17] <mdke> now you go :)
[22:18] <andrew_sayers> I'll stick to one point at a time, so here's my first argument :)
[22:18] <andrew_sayers> Doesn't that make us look like zealots?
[22:18] <mdke> no, I don't think so
[22:18] <andrew_sayers> Either you ditch your solution of choice, or you're a second class citizen?
[22:19] <mdke> that's not zealotry. People make choices like that all the time
[22:19] <andrew_sayers> Hmm, can you give me an example?
[22:19] <mdke> if the interests of 5% of users had to be catered for, no one would ever get any software UI work done
[22:20] <andrew_sayers> That's where the FF argument comes in though.
[22:21] <mdke> not really. To support firefox, all web designers had to do was to support web standards
[22:21] <andrew_sayers> Or if you prefer, colour blind people, properly blind people, people with JS disabled, people that use Dvorak keyboards...
[22:21] <mdke> right, people with JS disabled is another good example
[22:22] <mdke> obviously things should work without JS enabled, but that doesn't mean that it should never be used to improve a site for those who enable it
[22:22] <mdke> actually, for the theme, we're trying to use a JS solution for the editbar
[22:22] <mdke> to work around that issue you encountered with the firefox "find" utility
[22:22] <andrew_sayers> Yeah, I noticed something about that.
[22:23] <andrew_sayers> I have no problem with adding extra functionality where possible, my problem is with breaking basic stuff that doesn't have to be broken.
[22:24] <andrew_sayers> E.g. add colour to a website, but don't communicate information purely with colour, because of colour blindness.
[22:24] <mdke> yes, I understand that
[22:25] <mdke> what's the solution you had in mind for IE6?
[22:26] <andrew_sayers> For which issue?
[22:26] <mdke> the image transparency
[22:26] <andrew_sayers> Use the icons I provided.
[22:26] <andrew_sayers> Or alternatively, I'll do the same to the other icons.
[22:26] <mdke> and what is it that you did?
[22:26] <andrew_sayers> Converted the transparent background to the relevant colour.
[22:27] <andrew_sayers> (Yellow for hint, red for warning, etc.)
[22:27] <mdke> ok
[22:27] <mdke> that kinda makes it more difficult to change the colours in the future, I guess?
[22:28] <andrew_sayers> Yeah, although you seem to be saying you like it that way?
[22:28] <andrew_sayers> We can always keep the originals around.
[22:28] <mdke> no, that's not what I'm saying
[22:28] <andrew_sayers> (That we should hard-code the background colours, rather than putting it in the theme)
[22:29] <mdke> but it's not more difficult to edit the colours in the macro.py than it is to edit them in the theme.css
[22:29] <mdke> it's the same number of type strokes
[22:29] <mdke> but redoing the images is a bigger thing
[22:30] <mdke> which wouldn't be necessary with transparent images
[22:30] <mdke> also, using transparent images means we can use interchangeable icons with the system docs, which would be nice and simple
[22:30] <mdke> i guess one weighs these things up when considering whether to make the effort for IE6
[22:31] <andrew_sayers> Yeah - that was another point.  On a philosophical level, I feel the relationship between developer and user should be pretty unequal.
[22:31] <andrew_sayers> On a practical level, most remaining IE6 users aren't that way by choice.
[22:32] <andrew_sayers> Hmm... we can always give IE users different icons.
[22:33] <mdke> uhoh
[22:33] <andrew_sayers> Which makes the worst case (if we change BG colours) no different to the current case.
[22:34] <andrew_sayers> (Although this takes us way into "ugly hack" territory)
[22:34] <mdke> let's go with the edited images for everything. I'm sure it's easy enough to add the background and we'll have the transparent icons around for future reference if we change the colours
[22:34] <andrew_sayers> Fair enough.
[22:35] <andrew_sayers> But the GNOME icons rather than the current ones?
[22:35] <mdke> well, I like them more. But I'd like others to agree before signing off, on the basis that we would be changing them in the system docs too
[22:35] <mdke> do you like theme?
[22:35] <mdke> them*
[22:35] <andrew_sayers> I'll look again, gimme a mo...
[22:36] <andrew_sayers> I prefer the tip, think the caution is better implemented, but don't really like the note.
[22:36] <andrew_sayers> If it's an either/or choice, I'd say go with the GNOME ones.
[22:37] <mdke> :)
[22:37] <mdke> I don't really like the previous note icon, it's a bit oldfashioned and I don't see the use of having text in it
[22:38] <andrew_sayers> I quite like the text, but more importantly, I like that it's a small light rectangle - a big bright square is kinda offputting to me.
[22:39] <mdke> hmm
[22:39] <mdke> would you want to change the background colours if we switch icons?
[22:39] <andrew_sayers> Preferably, yeah.
[22:39] <mdke> I thought you would say that
[22:40] <mdke> damn perfectionists
[22:40] <andrew_sayers> :)
[22:41] <mdke> ok. Let's get the macro into review and on the wiki with the existing icons, and think about new icons at a later stage then. the work has all been done on that basis
[22:41] <mdke> can you send me the png files with the coloured backgrounds?
[22:41] <andrew_sayers> Well, hang on...
[22:41] <andrew_sayers> If you want the macro to work with old themes unmodified, we'll need to change the macro.
[22:41] <andrew_sayers> Since at present you'll just see an unstyled table.
[22:42] <mdke> you mean because the css isn't in the theme?
[22:43] <andrew_sayers> It's not in the old themes, yeah.
[22:43] <mdke> that's ok, I think. The ReleaseVersion macro requires css to be added to the theme too
[22:44] <andrew_sayers> Hmm.
[22:44] <andrew_sayers> I would think that either the CSS and image should be theme-specific, or neither should be.
[22:44] <mdke> most macros like that require css to be added to the theme, I think
[22:45] <andrew_sayers> Having them disagree sounds like a maintenance problem to me.
[22:45] <mdke> andrew_sayers: maybe you're right
[22:46] <mdke> ok, let's face it that I need to merge your other revisions too :)
[22:47] <andrew_sayers> Each of these opinions is a reaction to an old scar from making the opposite choice long ago :)
[22:47] <mdke> ok. I'll do the merge
[22:48] <andrew_sayers> Thanks.
[22:48] <andrew_sayers> Would you rather wait for me to put some more icons in?
[22:49] <mdke> I think these will work fine
[22:51] <andrew_sayers> Fair enough, although the icons are now done - I'll e-mail them?
[22:52] <mdke> ok, thanks. Maybe off-list
[22:52] <andrew_sayers> Yeah, good idea.
[22:52] <mdke> gtg to bed now
[22:52] <mdke> thanks for the chat
[22:52] <andrew_sayers> Night night.
[22:52] <andrew_sayers> Thanks for scratching the itch :)