With the Say Media/SA announcement, it might be an ideal time to push Melody. Perhaps an update of where Melody is right now, how far from a proper release and plans for the future? It might get some good coverage, and certainly wouldn't hurt.
If people agree, who would be best placed to put that together and get it out there? Byrne? :)
I agree. I think most of the remaining bugs assigned to 1.0 beta should be moved to a separate "unit testing" category. Having been using 0.9.18 with a custom fix for commenting (Jay is working on a better version), I've found Melody to be a lot readier to go than the unit testing would suggest. I literally haven't encountered ANYTHING that I can remember that was broken from a functional user perspective except for the commenting (yeah, I know, it's a big deal, but we have a quick fix from me already and a better one from Jay coming soon).
I think the best solution for us is to fix some of these few quirks and say "BETA!!!" to at least quiet the jeers about how long it's taken for us to get a release.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Matt Carey <m...@studiolift.com> wrote: > With the Say Media/SA announcement, it might be an ideal time to push Melody. Perhaps an update of where Melody is right now, how far from a proper release and plans for the future? It might get some good coverage, and certainly wouldn't hurt.
> If people agree, who would be best placed to put that together and get it out there? Byrne? :)
> Matt
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> I agree. I think most of the remaining bugs assigned to 1.0 beta > should be moved to a separate "unit testing" category. Having been > using 0.9.18 with a custom fix for commenting (Jay is working on a > better version), I've found Melody to be a lot readier to go than the > unit testing would suggest. I literally haven't encountered ANYTHING > that I can remember that was broken from a functional user perspective > except for the commenting (yeah, I know, it's a big deal, but we have > a quick fix from me already and a better one from Jay coming soon).
> I think the best solution for us is to fix some of these few quirks > and say "BETA!!!" to at least quiet the jeers about how long it's > taken for us to get a release.
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Matt Carey <m...@studiolift.com> wrote: > > With the Say Media/SA announcement, it might be an ideal time to push > Melody. Perhaps an update of where Melody is right now, how far from a > proper release and plans for the future? It might get some good coverage, > and certainly wouldn't hurt.
> > If people agree, who would be best placed to put that together and get it > out there? Byrne? :)
> > Matt
> > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<openmelody%2Bunsubscribe@googlegrou ps.com> > > For more options, visit this group at > > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com<openmelody%2Bunsubscribe@googlegrou ps.com> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
-- Miguel Angel Sánchez Rubio Xtencil - Web, Print & Multimedia Studio T. +34 677 307 244 W. http://www.xtencil.com
> With the Say Media/SA announcement, it might be an ideal time to push Melody. Perhaps an update of where Melody is right now, how far from a proper release and plans for the future? It might get some good coverage, and certainly wouldn't hurt.
> If people agree, who would be best placed to put that together and get it out there? Byrne? :)
I think so! :)
Good idea folks and I am heartened by the continued interest in the project!
Mike - thank you for all of your hard world in whipping this project into shape and your multitude of commits and contributions. Any progress this project has made in the last 3 months has been because of you. Thank you.
And I agree. Now is the time to launch a beta. It couldn't be better timing actually because I think it will resonate strongly with with one of the fundamental advantages of open source: companies come and go, but open source is forever.
> I agree. I think most of the remaining bugs assigned to 1.0 beta > should be moved to a separate "unit testing" category. Having been > using 0.9.18 with a custom fix for commenting (Jay is working on a > better version), I've found Melody to be a lot readier to go than the > unit testing would suggest. I literally haven't encountered ANYTHING > that I can remember that was broken from a functional user perspective > except for the commenting (yeah, I know, it's a big deal, but we have > a quick fix from me already and a better one from Jay coming soon).
> I think the best solution for us is to fix some of these few quirks > and say "BETA!!!" to at least quiet the jeers about how long it's > taken for us to get a release.
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 7:34 AM, Matt Carey <m...@studiolift.com> wrote: >> With the Say Media/SA announcement, it might be an ideal time to push Melody. Perhaps an update of where Melody is right now, how far from a proper release and plans for the future? It might get some good coverage, and certainly wouldn't hurt.
>> If people agree, who would be best placed to put that together and get it out there? Byrne? :)
>> Matt
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) >> To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
Yes, kudos to Mike. I appreciate your work and have a great deal of my respect for your efforts.
I completely agree that this would be an ideal time to highlight Melody also.
This brings up some personal sore points that have been festering with me here. It has made motivation difficult here.
The biggest show stopper IMHO is that Melody looks just like MT4. We've talked about needing a "fresh coat of paint" for 1.0 for over a year. This is one job that does not require Perl or SQL knowledge or other esoteric technical skills. What it does require is an eye for design and a bit of user experience and usability within the constraints of the current markup. That means CSS and a lot of "elbow grease" and persistence. Maybe some JavaScript tweaking.
Much to my dismay, no one has stepped up and delivered that.
Another near show stopper is that Melody needs a more modern default template set. We got the go ahead to use Derek Powzak's various Depo template sets. No one has stepped up and ported those either.
Why don't I do it? Well given my technical expertise and how limited those skills are to this community, I think Open Melody has a serious problem if I'm the one doing that type of work. I have a decent eye for design, but I am not a designer, UX or IA expert.
I think there are a lot of you that are. So what's it going to be? Are we going to rally or rest in peace?
[I always feel like "dad" or "coach" when I write these.]
<tim/>
[1] There are technical issues why we can't go for a whole new interface right now.
I completely agree that this would be an ideal time to highlight Melody.
This brings up some personal sore points that have been festering with me here. It has made motivation difficult here.
The biggest show stopper IMHO is that Melody looks just like MT4. We've talked about needing a "fresh coat of paint" for 1.0 for over a year. This is one job that does not require Perl or SQL knowledge or other esoteric technical skills. What it does require is an eye for design and a bit of user experience and usability within the constraints of the current markup. That means CSS and a lot of "elbow grease" and persistence. Maybe some JavaScript tweaking.
Much to my dismay, no one has stepped up and delivered that.
Another near show stopper is that Melody needs a more modern default template set. We got the go ahead to use Derek Powzak's various Depo template sets. No one has stepped up and ported those either.
Why don't I do it? Well given my technical expertise and how limited those skills are to this community, I think Open Melody has a serious problem if I'm the one doing that type of work. I have a decent eye for design, but I am not a designer, UX or IA expert.
I think there are a lot of you that are. So what's it going to be? Are we going to rally or rest in peace?
[I always feel like "dad" or "coach" when I write these.]
<tim/>
[1] There are technical issues why we can't go for a whole new interface right now.
> The biggest show stopper IMHO is that Melody looks just like MT4. > We've talked about needing a "fresh coat of paint" for 1.0 for over a > year. This is one job that does not require Perl or SQL knowledge or > other esoteric technical skills. What it does require is an eye for > design and a bit of user experience and usability within the > constraints of the current markup. That means CSS and a lot of "elbow > grease" and persistence. Maybe some JavaScript tweaking.
> Much to my dismay, no one has stepped up and delivered that.
A very good point. I'll hold my hand up and say I could (and should) have stepped up for that task as my contribution. As a designer, not a coder, that is a perfect task for me.
When Melody first started I thought (my memory might be wrong here) that the UI task had been allocated? Was it to Jesse? Not sure. So I left well alone, and running a business and two small children took my eye off the ball!
I might be able to commit some time to the UI, however it wouldn't be instant.
Do we go with the beta 'as is' or wait for the UI? I don't know...
Jesse has put some work into a re-skin, but I am not sure it is complete. Then he took a full time position that took him away from his mainly MT-based freelancing career. While he is still involved with the project, the intersection between his work and Movable Type has significantly decreased.
Melody will be developed and propagated by those who make a living working on it. Jesse is no longer one of those people.
We can send along his PSDs if you would like, you can take a look and help us assemble some JPGs to post to the web site. Maybe you can help lead some folks into polishing and refining what he started?
>> The biggest show stopper IMHO is that Melody looks just like MT4. >> We've talked about needing a "fresh coat of paint" for 1.0 for over a >> year. This is one job that does not require Perl or SQL knowledge or >> other esoteric technical skills. What it does require is an eye for >> design and a bit of user experience and usability within the >> constraints of the current markup. That means CSS and a lot of "elbow >> grease" and persistence. Maybe some JavaScript tweaking.
>> Much to my dismay, no one has stepped up and delivered that.
> A very good point. I'll hold my hand up and say I could (and should) have stepped up for that task as my contribution. As a designer, not a coder, that is a perfect task for me.
> When Melody first started I thought (my memory might be wrong here) that the UI task had been allocated? Was it to Jesse? Not sure. So I left well alone, and running a business and two small children took my eye off the ball!
> I might be able to commit some time to the UI, however it wouldn't be instant.
> Do we go with the beta 'as is' or wait for the UI? I don't know...
> Matt
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:34 PM, Timothy Appnel <t...@appnel.com> wrote: > Yes, kudos to Mike. I appreciate your work and have a great deal of my > respect for your efforts.
> I completely agree that this would be an ideal time to highlight Melody also.
> This brings up some personal sore points that have been festering with > me here. It has made motivation difficult here.
> The biggest show stopper IMHO is that Melody looks just like MT4. > We've talked about needing a "fresh coat of paint" for 1.0 for over a > year. This is one job that does not require Perl or SQL knowledge or > other esoteric technical skills. What it does require is an eye for > design and a bit of user experience and usability within the > constraints of the current markup. That means CSS and a lot of "elbow > grease" and persistence. Maybe some JavaScript tweaking.
> Much to my dismay, no one has stepped up and delivered that.
> Another near show stopper is that Melody needs a more modern default > template set. We got the go ahead to use Derek Powzak's various Depo > template sets. No one has stepped up and ported those either.
> Why don't I do it? Well given my technical expertise and how limited > those skills are to this community, I think Open Melody has a serious > problem if I'm the one doing that type of work. I have a decent eye > for design, but I am not a designer, UX or IA expert.
> I think there are a lot of you that are. So what's it going to be? Are > we going to rally or rest in peace?
> [I always feel like "dad" or "coach" when I write these.]
> <tim/>
> [1] There are technical issues why we can't go for a whole new > interface right now.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote: > We can send along his PSDs if you would like, you can take a look and help us assemble some JPGs to post to the web site. Maybe you can help lead some folks into polishing and refining what he started?
For now, here are the screen assemblies Su was able to tease out of Jesse's PSD. I also had another screenshot that didn't seem to be in the PSD that include.
A couple of things while on topic:
I really loved a lot of the look and feel that came out of the openmelody.org site design so I'm curious to why more of that wasn't reused in the mockup here.
One thing we really should (must?) change is the dashboard since the Flash widget has licensing that is not compatible with the GPL limiting distribution options.
I like those a lot, but they basically look like MT5. If we are basically MT 4.4 at Melody 1.0 and look that close to MT5 won't that defeat the goal of not confusing users?
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Timothy Appnel <t...@appnel.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote:
>> We can send along his PSDs if you would like, you can take a look and help us assemble some JPGs to post to the web site. Maybe you can help lead some folks into polishing and refining what he started?
> For now, here are the screen assemblies Su was able to tease out of > Jesse's PSD. I also had another screenshot that didn't seem to be in > the PSD that include.
> A couple of things while on topic:
> I really loved a lot of the look and feel that came out of the > openmelody.org site design so I'm curious to why more of that wasn't > reused in the mockup here.
> One thing we really should (must?) change is the dashboard since the > Flash widget has licensing that is not compatible with the GPL > limiting distribution options.
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> One thing we really should (must?) change is the dashboard since the > Flash widget has licensing that is not compatible with the GPL > limiting distribution options.
Who needs Flash? Just replace the graph with jquery and flot.
I think you make a good point, but I think it would be awesome to move Melody in the direction of the MT5 layout - it might even allow us to take advantage of some of MT5's many features.
Let me throw this against the wall and see if it sticks:
1) Launch Melody 1.0 Beta with current MT4 look and feel and work to release an official 1.0 asap. 2) Upon launch of 1.0, immediately begin development on Melody 1.1 - which would sport the new UI. No new features if we can avoid. Let's focus our limited resources on fully implementing a kick-ass UI. 3) Plan Melody 1.2 to be an aggressive push to merge with MT5. This version of Melody would continue to use the Melody skin (see #2 above), but would incorporate MT5 features.
The plan to merge with MT5:
The biggest challenge I foresee in merging with MT5 is the shift to the web site model. I have never been satisfied with the MT5 user experience with regards to web sites and I think we can improve upon it. So let's plan on using the MT5 backend, but obscure users away from the whole concept of web sites in the UI. Somehow.
Or alternatively - let's tackle the UX problems MT5 has.
I encourage everyone to provide feedback on this plan, but caution us not to get too distracted by longer term stuff. Our focus must be on shipping the beta.
> I like those a lot, but they basically look like MT5. If we are > basically MT 4.4 at Melody 1.0 and look that close to MT5 won't that > defeat the goal of not confusing users?
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Timothy Appnel <t...@appnel.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote:
>>> We can send along his PSDs if you would like, you can take a look and help us assemble some JPGs to post to the web site. Maybe you can help lead some folks into polishing and refining what he started?
>> For now, here are the screen assemblies Su was able to tease out of >> Jesse's PSD. I also had another screenshot that didn't seem to be in >> the PSD that include.
>> A couple of things while on topic:
>> I really loved a lot of the look and feel that came out of the >> openmelody.org site design so I'm curious to why more of that wasn't >> reused in the mockup here.
>> One thing we really should (must?) change is the dashboard since the >> Flash widget has licensing that is not compatible with the GPL >> limiting distribution options.
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) >> To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
>> One thing we really should (must?) change is the dashboard since the >> Flash widget has licensing that is not compatible with the GPL >> limiting distribution options.
> Who needs Flash? Just replace the graph with jquery and flot.
> Cuiusvis hominis est errare, nullius nisi > insipientis in errore perseverare. --Cicero
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
I think if that's the route we intend to take, we'd be better off committing to MT 5.0.3 or 5.1 now and not looking back. Starting from 5.0.3 or 5.1 will be substantially easier than merging back with it.
I know Tim has reservations about this (he voiced them when I suggested we rebase off of 5.X a few months ago), but I think we can make 5.X kick ass. I also think 6AKK would be far more inclined to put their heads together with us if we go this route.
However, the fact is that if we are going this route it needs to be done soon, the decision needs to be final and we need to make like the conquistadors by burning our proverbial ships and not looking back.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote: > Or one might also say it looks like WordPress. :)
> I think you make a good point, but I think it would be awesome to move Melody in the direction of the MT5 layout - it might even allow us to take advantage of some of MT5's many features.
> Let me throw this against the wall and see if it sticks:
> 1) Launch Melody 1.0 Beta with current MT4 look and feel and work to release an official 1.0 asap. > 2) Upon launch of 1.0, immediately begin development on Melody 1.1 - which would sport the new UI. No new features if we can avoid. Let's focus our limited resources on fully implementing a kick-ass UI. > 3) Plan Melody 1.2 to be an aggressive push to merge with MT5. This version of Melody would continue to use the Melody skin (see #2 above), but would incorporate MT5 features.
> The plan to merge with MT5:
> The biggest challenge I foresee in merging with MT5 is the shift to the web site model. I have never been satisfied with the MT5 user experience with regards to web sites and I think we can improve upon it. So let's plan on using the MT5 backend, but obscure users away from the whole concept of web sites in the UI. Somehow.
> Or alternatively - let's tackle the UX problems MT5 has.
> I encourage everyone to provide feedback on this plan, but caution us not to get too distracted by longer term stuff. Our focus must be on shipping the beta.
> Byrne
> On Sep 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Mike Thomsen wrote:
>> I like those a lot, but they basically look like MT5. If we are >> basically MT 4.4 at Melody 1.0 and look that close to MT5 won't that >> defeat the goal of not confusing users?
>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Timothy Appnel <t...@appnel.com> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote:
>>>> We can send along his PSDs if you would like, you can take a look and help us assemble some JPGs to post to the web site. Maybe you can help lead some folks into polishing and refining what he started?
>>> For now, here are the screen assemblies Su was able to tease out of >>> Jesse's PSD. I also had another screenshot that didn't seem to be in >>> the PSD that include.
>>> A couple of things while on topic:
>>> I really loved a lot of the look and feel that came out of the >>> openmelody.org site design so I'm curious to why more of that wasn't >>> reused in the mockup here.
>>> One thing we really should (must?) change is the dashboard since the >>> Flash widget has licensing that is not compatible with the GPL >>> limiting distribution options.
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) >>> To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) >> To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> I really loved a lot of the look and feel that came out of the > openmelody.org site design so I'm curious to why more of that wasn't > reused in the mockup here.
A "corporate web site" and an application have different audiences and needs. So the fact that they diverge is not surprising.
I love Jesse's design direction as well and I think there is enough there for us to run with it.
I encourage people to check out Harmony App (http://get.harmonyapp.com) - its UI model is AWESOME and very forward thinking. It is possible that Melody/MT5 and yes, even Wordpress are perhaps stuck in a UI rut. Whereas Harmony seems to have broken free of the normal set of constraints we typically feel compelled to design around. Plus, their UI is all done using HTML5 and CSS3, requires a modern browser and looks HOT on the iPad. Just saying... :)
Let's not under estimate the enhancements we have already made to MT4 via Melody. I don't want to turn my back on them so quickly, especially considering we have a release stable enough to begin a beta with.
Fearing that an MT4 vs MT5 discussion will derail our focus and growing momentum, I strongly suggest we table it. Let's focus on getting what we have out the door, and then schedule a community phone call to discuss Melody 1.1. Does that sound like reasonable way forward?
> I think if that's the route we intend to take, we'd be better off > committing to MT 5.0.3 or 5.1 now and not looking back. Starting from > 5.0.3 or 5.1 will be substantially easier than merging back with it.
> I know Tim has reservations about this (he voiced them when I > suggested we rebase off of 5.X a few months ago), but I think we can > make 5.X kick ass. I also think 6AKK would be far more inclined to put > their heads together with us if we go this route.
> However, the fact is that if we are going this route it needs to be > done soon, the decision needs to be final and we need to make like the > conquistadors by burning our proverbial ships and not looking back.
> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote: >> Or one might also say it looks like WordPress. :)
>> I think you make a good point, but I think it would be awesome to move Melody in the direction of the MT5 layout - it might even allow us to take advantage of some of MT5's many features.
>> Let me throw this against the wall and see if it sticks:
>> 1) Launch Melody 1.0 Beta with current MT4 look and feel and work to release an official 1.0 asap. >> 2) Upon launch of 1.0, immediately begin development on Melody 1.1 - which would sport the new UI. No new features if we can avoid. Let's focus our limited resources on fully implementing a kick-ass UI. >> 3) Plan Melody 1.2 to be an aggressive push to merge with MT5. This version of Melody would continue to use the Melody skin (see #2 above), but would incorporate MT5 features.
>> The plan to merge with MT5:
>> The biggest challenge I foresee in merging with MT5 is the shift to the web site model. I have never been satisfied with the MT5 user experience with regards to web sites and I think we can improve upon it. So let's plan on using the MT5 backend, but obscure users away from the whole concept of web sites in the UI. Somehow.
>> Or alternatively - let's tackle the UX problems MT5 has.
>> I encourage everyone to provide feedback on this plan, but caution us not to get too distracted by longer term stuff. Our focus must be on shipping the beta.
>> Byrne
>> On Sep 22, 2010, at 12:32 PM, Mike Thomsen wrote:
>>> I like those a lot, but they basically look like MT5. If we are >>> basically MT 4.4 at Melody 1.0 and look that close to MT5 won't that >>> defeat the goal of not confusing users?
>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Timothy Appnel <t...@appnel.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 1:00 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote:
>>>>> We can send along his PSDs if you would like, you can take a look and help us assemble some JPGs to post to the web site. Maybe you can help lead some folks into polishing and refining what he started?
>>>> For now, here are the screen assemblies Su was able to tease out of >>>> Jesse's PSD. I also had another screenshot that didn't seem to be in >>>> the PSD that include.
>>>> A couple of things while on topic:
>>>> I really loved a lot of the look and feel that came out of the >>>> openmelody.org site design so I'm curious to why more of that wasn't >>>> reused in the mockup here.
>>>> One thing we really should (must?) change is the dashboard since the >>>> Flash widget has licensing that is not compatible with the GPL >>>> limiting distribution options.
>>>> -- >>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>>> Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) >>>> To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com >>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>>> openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>>> For more options, visit this group at >>>> http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
>>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) >>> To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com >>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >>> openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >>> For more options, visit this group at >>> http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
>> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) >> To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to >> openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com >> For more options, visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
> 1) Launch Melody 1.0 Beta with current MT4 look and feel and work to release an official 1.0 asap. > 2) Upon launch of 1.0, immediately begin development on Melody 1.1 - which would sport the new UI. No new features if we can avoid. Let's focus our limited resources on fully implementing a kick-ass UI.
This is a total non-starter and a bad idea IMO. It is far too wishful thinking that anyone who thinks "MT" is dead will convinced, let alone impressed, that there is some life to thing unless they can *see* it.
Byrne, you and Anil more than anyone have beaten that home to me.
Introducing a very different looking UI as a point release also seem misaligned.
> 3) Plan Melody 1.2 to be an aggressive push to merge with MT5. This version of Melody would continue to use the Melody skin (see #2 above), but would incorporate MT5 features.
No way. Nice idea, but incredibly wishful thinking that is almost guaranteed not to succeed. There is nothing in Six Apart's track record that indicates that they will cooperate or collaborate with the community. I simply do not trust Six Apart to do right by the community to bet the future success on this project on working with them.
[snip]
> Or alternatively - let's tackle the UX problems MT5 has.
How about we create what we want and quit cleaning up Six Apart's mistakes and problems?
+1 (My previous comment was mainly to illustrate the need to commit and simply do it no matter where it takes us)
I'll plan my next theme project to be to look into Depo Skinny and Depo Square. I'm almost done with Mystique (yes, the Mystique that is one WP's top themes at the moment and my new site theme ;) )
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:36 PM, Timothy Appnel <t...@appnel.com> wrote: >> 1) Launch Melody 1.0 Beta with current MT4 look and feel and work to release an official 1.0 asap. >> 2) Upon launch of 1.0, immediately begin development on Melody 1.1 - which would sport the new UI. No new features if we can avoid. Let's focus our limited resources on fully implementing a kick-ass UI.
> This is a total non-starter and a bad idea IMO. It is far too wishful > thinking that anyone who thinks "MT" is dead will convinced, let alone > impressed, that there is some life to thing unless they can *see* it.
> Byrne, you and Anil more than anyone have beaten that home to me.
> Introducing a very different looking UI as a point release also seem misaligned.
>> 3) Plan Melody 1.2 to be an aggressive push to merge with MT5. This version of Melody would continue to use the Melody skin (see #2 above), but would incorporate MT5 features.
> No way. Nice idea, but incredibly wishful thinking that is almost > guaranteed not to succeed. There is nothing in Six Apart's track > record that indicates that they will cooperate or collaborate with the > community. I simply do not trust Six Apart to do right by the > community to bet the future success on this project on working with > them.
> [snip] >> Or alternatively - let's tackle the UX problems MT5 has.
> How about we create what we want and quit cleaning up Six Apart's > mistakes and problems?
> -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Group for the OpenMelody Project (http://openmelody.org) > To post to this group, send email to openmelody@googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > openmelody+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/openmelody?hl=en
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Mike Thomsen <mikerthom...@gmail.com> wrote: > I think if that's the route we intend to take, we'd be better off > committing to MT 5.0.3 or 5.1 now and not looking back. Starting from > 5.0.3 or 5.1 will be substantially easier than merging back with it.
I disagree. We have to go our own way. I've felt this way from the start, but others have wanted, I'm not sure why, to try and work hand and hand with Six Apart. It wasted a lot of time and energy and got us nowhere.
So, why tried that, time for something different. This is not to say we break compatibility just because, but we cannot anchor ourselves to their product strategies and volatile company environment.
> I know Tim has reservations about this (he voiced them when I > suggested we rebase off of 5.X a few months ago), but I think we can > make 5.X kick ass. I also think 6AKK would be far more inclined to put > their heads together with us if we go this route.
I did and I have more reason now than before. Jun said things where going to change how long ago? And what's been done since then to work with Melody or help? I have no doubt they are nice well meaning people, but the track record says we can't rely on them.
> However, the fact is that if we are going this route it needs to be > done soon, the decision needs to be final and we need to make like the > conquistadors by burning our proverbial ships and not looking back.
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Byrne Reese <by...@majordojo.com> wrote: > A "corporate web site" and an application have different audiences and needs. So the fact that they diverge is not surprising.
I realize that. What I mean is that the two don't even look related. The "corporate website" looks bold (lots of black), clear and sharp with lots of splashes of color. While that's in those screen shots are better than what we have now it looks washed out and grey and like a lot of other
> I love Jesse's design direction as well and I think there is enough there for us to run with it.
I think it should be a data point. So let's put the pen and our pocket protecter and return to the one and zeros. Matt and others will figure it out.
> I encourage people to check out Harmony App (http://get.harmonyapp.com) - its UI model is AWESOME and very forward thinking. It is possible that Melody/MT5 and yes, even Wordpress are perhaps stuck in a UI rut. Whereas Harmony seems to have broken free of the normal set of constraints we typically feel compelled to design around. Plus, their UI is all done using HTML5 and CSS3, requires a modern browser and looks HOT on the iPad. Just saying... :)
This is an excellent datapoint also, but perhaps for when the UI truly gets redone.
Once upon a time we discussed that 1.0 would be a fresh coat of paint and 2.0 would be the UI we really wanted with numerous released in between to get from one to the other.
Maybe there is some ideas can be gleaned from Harmony that can get thrown in now.
I only say this because I know the application code and templates are such a tangled unmanageable mess (there is a call recording where I explain this is great detail) that such UI innovations will probably take a great deal of work and recoding.
It seems pretty clear that there's a great divide between MT4 and MT5 and I'd say Melody would be better off focusing on building on MT4 and doing it WELL rather than splitting efforts.
I say that as someone who updated to MT5 and will be left a bit out in the cold. The decision to upgrade was made rather hastily on my part...I don't strictly speaking *regret* it but I'd migrate to Melody if I could, and my next project will probably be built on Melody. The Six Apart waters need to settle a bit I think.
On Sep-22-2010, at 13:36 , Timothy Appnel wrote:
>> 3) Plan Melody 1.2 to be an aggressive push to merge with MT5. This version of Melody would continue to use the Melody skin (see #2 above), but would incorporate MT5 features.
> No way. Nice idea, but incredibly wishful thinking that is almost > guaranteed not to succeed. There is nothing in Six Apart's track > record that indicates that they will cooperate or collaborate with the > community.
"In anything at all, perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupéry, Wind, Sand and Stars
On Sep 22, 4:34 am, Matt Carey <m...@studiolift.com> wrote:
> With the Say Media/SA announcement, it might be an ideal time to push Melody. Perhaps an update of where Melody is right now, how far from a proper release and plans for the future? It might get some good coverage, and certainly wouldn't hurt.
