I’d love your thoughts on adding two new tags to allowed theme tags: see https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/21065.
Lance Willett, Konstantin Kovshenin, Emil Uzelac, and 2 others are discussing. Toggle Comments
+1 to both. There’s some ongoing discussion about what the review standards should be for responsive themes, but I see that as a separate issue to the question of having a tag — tags are about the fact that end users want to search for certain features, and responsive design isn’t a concept that’s going away any time soon. And flexible headers is an easy win.
I think this is a great idea, not only because its a feature on WordPress.com already but because I often want to change the size dimensions (height more so then width) in twenty ten and twenty eleven as I use those themes for almost everything I do with WordPress.
Adding the ‘flexible-header’ tag & allowing 3.4 compatible themes the ability to use the custom header feature is a must as far as I am concerned.
Adding the ‘responsive-width’ tag isn’t a bad idea. I think as people’s expectations of themes, to be responsive, increases, this will be a patch you will have to make down the road, if you decide against it now. Definitely a step in the right direction.
I appreciate you reaching out to me for my thoughts and I’d love to help out more in whatever way I can!
side note: I apologize for the lack of Weekly Theme Shows as of late, we are really trying to get the right fit and structure down for the show to make it worthwhile to everyone who listens.
Note that the features are up for grabs and any theme developer to use, and flex headers in particular are already in both Twenty Ten and Twenty Eleven — the question here is about adding the tags to the filtered search so users can specifically search for themes that include them.
Ah, gotcha. Yeah i read trough that track ticket a little to quickly.
Themes with those abilities are something I actively look for when dealing with clients, hence the heavy usage of twenty ten and twenty eleven. Being able to do a filtered search for themes with these features would be extremely beneficial, save time, and help to better qualify themes for selection/download, in my opinion.
There’s no doubt that this isn’t needed, both are definitive (yay).
To check if Theme is using RWD and how much of that’s true will take as much as time as the standard review. No point really going there, unless there are some obvious issues.
RWD is not just the layout, it’s everything else around it, such as images, videos, typography etc.
If an author says that their design is layout super, we can take their word for it. If it’s not it will be classified as false “advertisement” (Theme Description).
I like both feature tags, though I wouldn’t use “responsive-width” for several reasons:
I think the feature should be called mobile-friendly, device-friendly or okay, maybe responsive-layout, but it should not fall under the width column in the tag filter: https://wordpress.org/extend/themes/tag-filter/
Just my two cents I’d like to hear your opinion.
Those are good points, it could be hard to explain “responsive-width” from “flexible-width” as you said, but I think it still stands on its own.
I do think it’s better to add to the width category rather than not adding it at all—themes need to be able to be categorized by having responsive design.
Should we update the width category to something new? Like “Layout” and change it to fixed, responsive, and fluid? (Flexible is ambiguous—I prefer fluid for themes with a liquid, fluid layout.)
Hi, sorry never subscribed to this thread after posting.
After discussion on Make Themes, I think a better approach is to rename
“Widths” terms to “Layout” and change the three allowed values to “Fixed,
By the way—if anyone wants a fun read—we’ve developed a much broader taxonomy for categorizing themes including new terms for Subject and Style: https://wpcom-themes.svn.automattic.com/demo/theme-taxonomy.txt.
It’s in use heavily on http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/ and has been well-received by people looking for themes fitting a certain look or style.
Someday I’d like to rework the core list to include this, if possible.
Update: I split out the “flexible-header” and the proposed changes to width -> layout into a new ticket.
See https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/21442 for the proposal and https://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/21065 for just the flexible-header change.
The flexible-header tag is now in core with r21604.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Please log in first to review.