Re: Consensus, timetable [Was: Goal of this group?]

I'd myself want to be careful about terms like fixed and variant page 
layout. A change, even a substantial change, in the observable/readable 
dimensions of a "page" by no means dictates or leads to a change in page 
layout; it may only vary the amount of content per "page". A change in 
layout to me means changing *what* elements are presented, not 
relatively minor things like widths and heights of elements.

I'd also make the point that "variant" page layout is pretty likely to 
be adaptive fixed page layout, as in, planning ahead of time for a 
fairly small number of approximate viewport dimensions (featurephone, 
smartphone, tablet, laptop, say), and designing a small number of fixed 
page layouts.This is a standard programmer methodology.

If this is not how people from predominantly publishing backgrounds 
understand these concepts, I'd be happy to be enlightened.

May I add, with all due respect, let us not neglect the developer in all 
these discussions. I think we'd all agree that the end user is the most 
important person. I'll concede that the SME is the next most important 
person. But I'll put it out there that the developer is the linchpin. 
May I see a show of hands as to whose livelihoods seriously involve 
programming? I'd like to see a few specs that consider implementors: not 
many do.

Arved

On 12/31/2013 04:13 AM, Patrick Gundlach wrote:
> Am 31.12.2013 um 08:42 schrieb Dave Pawson <dave.pawson@gmail.com>:
>
>> Perhaps because of history / XSL-FO the emphasis seems to be on
>> page layout which I see as a scope issue. It leaves me twitchy as
>> fixed page layout seems to be a declining publishing target, with
>> variant layout (screens/e-readers etc) rising.
>
> declining doesn't mean there isn't still a strong need for it.
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
> Patrick Gundlach
> speedata
> Berlin, Germany
> +49 30 57705055
> http://speedata.github.io/publisher/
>
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2013 13:31:37 UTC