Rails - Feb 2005 - Design proposal for default scaffolding....

Hi!

I recently discovered Rails and have become a big fan of it.

I saw the wish for an update to the design of the default Rails
scaffolding (at
http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/DesignedScaffoldingWish) and
decided to give it a try.

My design proposal uses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. The proposal and two
sample screens are available at:

http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rails/

I would be grateful for your comments.

Kind Regards,

Peter Krantz

ooh very nice, I like it alot!

I''d also like to see the generated scaffolding use postback method 
aswell (theres already a postback generator on the wiki somewhere)

Peter Krantz wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I recently discovered Rails and have become a big fan of it.
> 
> I saw the wish for an update to the design of the default Rails
> scaffolding (at
> http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/DesignedScaffoldingWish) and
> decided to give it a try.
> 
> My design proposal uses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. The proposal and two
> sample screens are available at:
> 
> http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rails/
> 
> I would be grateful for your comments.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Peter Krantz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

I say ''Aye!''. It looks great and keeps the simple look and
feel that I
believe RoR presents.

Thanks for the great work!


Adrian Madrid


On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 00:41:39 +0100 (CET), Peter Krantz
<pete-bhBtkFhEHeNw6fk2Hdk/AjuJmnLKpeCiAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> Hi!
> 
> I recently discovered Rails and have become a big fan of it.
> 
> I saw the wish for an update to the design of the default Rails
> scaffolding (at
> http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/DesignedScaffoldingWish ) and
> decided to give it a try.
> 
> My design proposal uses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. The proposal and two
> sample screens are available at:
> 
> http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rails/ 
> 
> I would be grateful for your comments.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Peter Krantz
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org 
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails 
> 

-- 
Adrian Esteban Madrid
aemadrid-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org

Peter Krantz wrote:
> Hi!
> 
> I recently discovered Rails and have become a big fan of it.
> 
> I saw the wish for an update to the design of the default Rails
> scaffolding (at
> http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/DesignedScaffoldingWish) and
> decided to give it a try.
> 
> My design proposal uses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. The proposal and two
> sample screens are available at:
> 
> http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rails/
> 
> I would be grateful for your comments.
> 
> Kind Regards,
> 
> Peter Krantz
This is pretty hot, Peter.  I especially like the table.  It has what I 
would refer to as "sex appeal".  I wouldn''t mind seeing this
in Rails.
Wouldn''t mind it at all.

-Scott


_______________________________________________
Rails mailing list
Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails

+1 for me too. Good work. :-)

One minor nitpick: I''d like to see block highlighting on the commands 
(Show, Edit, Destroy) similar to how it''s done at www.tadalist.com. 
That''s more application-ish to me than a straight hyperlink.

Best, Eric

On Feb 4, 2005, at 3:41 PM, Peter Krantz wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> I recently discovered Rails and have become a big fan of it.
>
> I saw the wish for an update to the design of the default Rails
> scaffolding (at
> http://wiki.rubyonrails.com/rails/show/DesignedScaffoldingWish) and
> decided to give it a try.
>
> My design proposal uses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. The proposal and 
> two
> sample screens are available at:
>
> http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rails/
>
> I would be grateful for your comments.
>
> Kind Regards,
>
> Peter Krantz
>
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

"Peter Krantz"
<pete-bhBtkFhEHeNw6fk2Hdk/AjuJmnLKpeCiAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
writes:
> My design proposal uses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. The proposal and two
> sample screens are available at:
>
> http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rails/
It looks very nice. I also like that you have thought about
Accessibility.

But I have problem with the date selector in Firefox. When I click on
the lists for the month or day, it opens for a split-second and closes
again. No problems with the year selector. Anyone else having this
problem or do I have to look for a problem with my browser
installation?

Patrice

-- 
the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus.                    (2 Timothy 3:15)

Patrice

I see the same behavior with Firefox 1.0 on Windows XP.

Todd


On Sat, 05 Feb 2005 02:23:50 +0100, Patrice Neff
<mailinglists-KpcR7UQHR1hyDzI6CaY1VQ@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> "Peter Krantz"
<pete-bhBtkFhEHeNw6fk2Hdk/AjuJmnLKpeCiAL8bYrjMMd8@public.gmane.org>
writes:
> 
> > My design proposal uses the XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype. The proposal and
two
> > sample screens are available at:
> >
> > http://www.standards-schmandards.com/exhibits/rails/
> 
> It looks very nice. I also like that you have thought about
> Accessibility.
> 
> But I have problem with the date selector in Firefox. When I click on
> the lists for the month or day, it opens for a split-second and closes
> again. No problems with the year selector. Anyone else having this
> problem or do I have to look for a problem with my browser
> installation?
> 
> Patrice
> 
> --
> the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation
> through faith in Christ Jesus.                    (2 Timothy 3:15)
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
>

These samples look great and would be a welcome start. My only concern 
is that there are still a number of browsers that crash and burn under 
XHTML 1.0 Strict. Since the scaffold is a general tools for getting up 
and running quickly it may be safer to settle on XHTML 1.0 Transitional 
to minimize issues in the wild.

Browser are moving fast these days but not for non-developers whom are 
slow to upgrade.

--
Lon

Lon Baker <lon-hoeJhiIZgoBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> writes:
> These samples look great and would be a welcome start. My only concern
> is that there are still a number of browsers that crash and burn under
> XHTML 1.0 Strict. Since the scaffold is a general tools for getting up
> and running quickly it may be safer to settle on XHTML 1.0
> Transitional to minimize issues in the wild.
What browsers would that be? The only problem I have ever heard of is
for example <br/> without a space before the trailing slash. But of
course as I don''t use ancient browsers, I''m not an
authoritative
source for that.
> Browser are moving fast these days but not for non-developers whom are
> slow to upgrade.
Rails Scaffolding is targeted at developers, or isn''t it? Which
reminds me of something else: Peter, could you implement a few access
keys? Like `n'' for "new" or `s'' for
"save".

Patrice

-- 
the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation
through faith in Christ Jesus.                    (2 Timothy 3:15)

> These samples look great and would be a welcome start. My only concern
> is that there are still a number of browsers that crash and burn under
> XHTML 1.0 Strict. Since the scaffold is a general tools for getting up
> and running quickly it may be safer to settle on XHTML 1.0 Transitional
> to minimize issues in the wild.
>
> Browser are moving fast these days but not for non-developers whom are
> slow to upgrade.
But isn''t scaffolding, by definition, something specifically for 
developers? I would be surprised if anyone on this list was using IE5 
for their main browser....

One of the other dissapointments with the current scaffolding is its
handling of text (And probably blob) fields. No one wants to see that
pretty table when one of the cells contains a 500 word blog entry.

Perhaps scaffolding could cut off the end of sql TEXT fields with a
... or something, hiding the full text from the user in the list view.
Alternatively, clicking on the ''...'' could pop up an
undecorated
browser window that contains the full text.

I don''t know what scaffolding does to blobs containing binary data,
but it should probably hide them with something like ''binary data:
1340 bytes'' that can be clicked on to load as text or something.

I realize that this goes farther than merely styling the scaffolding
in some ways, but it seems that it would contribute to its wow factor,
if nothing else.

People who first see rails see scaffolding. All of the cool Inflection
stuff, the ''three days ago'', etc. should be on display if only
to
demonstrate how trivial it all is with rails.

Brian


On Sat, 5 Feb 2005 09:19:18 -0600, Andrew Otwell
<andrew-uQjPo4GTFqgS+FvcfC7Uqw@public.gmane.org>
wrote:
> 
> > These samples look great and would be a welcome start. My only concern
> > is that there are still a number of browsers that crash and burn under
> > XHTML 1.0 Strict. Since the scaffold is a general tools for getting up
> > and running quickly it may be safer to settle on XHTML 1.0
Transitional
> > to minimize issues in the wild.
> >
> > Browser are moving fast these days but not for non-developers whom are
> > slow to upgrade.
> 
> But isn''t scaffolding, by definition, something specifically for
> developers? I would be surprised if anyone on this list was using IE5
> for their main browser....
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rails mailing list
> Rails-1W37MKcQCpIf0INCOvqR/iCwEArCW2h5@public.gmane.org
> http://lists.rubyonrails.org/mailman/listinfo/rails
> 

-- 
The years ahead pick up their dark bags.
They move closer. There''s a slight rise in the silence

then nothing.
--
(If you''re receiving this in response to mail sent to
bluczkie-OM76b2Iv3yLQjUSlxSEPGw@public.gmane.org, don''t be concerned
This is my new address,
but mail will be forwarded here indefinitely)

Hi Lon!

If one were to follow the W3C recommendations and serve the XHTML with the
proper mime type of ''application/xhtml+xml'' no Internet
Explorer version
would be able to handle the page. Is that the problem you are refering to?

Ideally Rails would look at the ''accept'' http header and
determine if the
browser making the request handles ''application/xhtml+xml'' and
in that
case serve the document accordingly.

My design proposal could easily be converted to XHTML 1.0 transitional (by
just changing the doctype). If you serve the page as
''text/html'' all
browsers would be happy (but standardistas will cry:-).

Kind regards,

Peter

In reply to:
> These samples look great and would be a welcome start. My only concern
> is that there are still a number of browsers that crash and burn under
> XHTML 1.0 Strict. Since the scaffold is a general tools for getting up
> and running quickly it may be safer to settle on XHTML 1.0 Transitional
> to minimize issues in the wild.
>
> Browser are moving fast these days but not for non-developers whom are
> slow to upgrade.
>
> --
> Lon
>

> Ideally Rails would look at the ''accept'' http header and
determine if the
> browser making the request handles
''application/xhtml+xml'' and in that
> case serve the document accordingly.
> 
Doesn''t really work, IE says it accepts */* and so does Safari.
However safari can handle xhtml+xml fine while IE can''t.

Either way, just serve it as application/html, this is correct because
xhtml+xml is a subset of html.

-- 
Tobi
http://www.snowdevil.ca - Snowboards that don''t suck
http://www.hieraki.org   - Open source book authoring
http://blog.leetsoft.com - Technical weblog

Peter Krantz <pete@...> writes:
> 
> Hi Lon!
> 
> If one were to follow the W3C recommendations and serve the XHTML with the
> proper mime type of ''application/xhtml+xml'' no Internet
Explorer version
> would be able to handle the page. Is that the problem you are refering to?
Yes. Does a developer want to be dealing with browser issues in
development? Or simply coding and developing their applications?

In my mind I want to avoid any and all issues that are not related
directly to the code and development of the application. If an issue
arises due to the the html generated by the scaffold it is not worth
potential loss in productivity in my opinion. I am not to saying that
shortcomings shouldn''t be addressed.

If this something a majority of developers "need" this, then I suggest
some stringenttesting before rolling it out to be certain that browser
issues do not get in the way of development.

My current baseline for browser support is Safari (Webkit browsers),
Mozilla/Firebird, Opera and IE 5.5 or higher. We have given up
supporting IE 5.0 since the CSS gymnastics to support it tend to be
painful.

Plain vanilla scafollding is great because it gets things done and
stays out of the way. Also the lack of a design elements prevents undue
influence and expectations down the line.

I am not trying to rain on the parade. Being a recovering
WebObjects/Java developer I am too familiar with the pain and timesink
that "improved" development tools can quickly become and want to avoid
those issues down the road.

-- Lon Baker

On Saturday 05 February 2005 14:36, Brian L. wrote:
> Perhaps scaffolding could cut off the end of sql TEXT fields with a
> ... or something, hiding the full text from the user in the list view.
> Alternatively, clicking on the ''...'' could pop up an
undecorated
> browser window that contains the full text.
Or use a hidden page element as hieraki''s edit buttons do. I find that
very
sweet. (Nice detail xal.)

-- 

Nicholas Seckar aka. Ulysses