[10:04:30] Meeting time guys! [10:05:43] @jobebot0101 @arschmitz @scott_gonzalez [10:06:01] err @joebot01_ [10:06:12] who else am I missing? [10:06:18] afternoon all [10:06:24] kborchers: ianmaffett [10:06:30] Hello! [10:06:33] Meeting Agenda: https://docs.google.com/a/sarahfrisk.com/spreadsheets/d/1FUdRcAq2d8njs8KAcfQmEyoZL74SXLsLp1rtc7E9z_I/edit#gid=1618433393 [10:06:51] markelog__: [10:07:39] So do you guys want to know the result of the name voting at the beginning of this meeting, or the end? [10:07:58] DaveMethvin: too oops [10:08:14] YES! [10:08:59] So a grand total of 10 anonymous people voted on the name of the css framework [10:09:36] With the results being 60% for Chassis, and 40% for Draft [10:09:45] Soooo, really close [10:09:57] yup but chassis it is sounds like [10:10:09] YAY [10:10:28] so we have a name! woo [10:10:37] So, I guess a follow up question is what do we want the repo name to be? chassis, chassis-css, css-chassis? [10:11:15] like like css-chassis [10:11:29] i like both chassis and css-chassis [10:11:33] Chassis is nice from a simplicity standpoint, although css chassis does help explain what it is [10:11:56] likely better for search-ability too [10:12:17] There are also 0 repos with the name css-chassis on GitHub. [10:12:25] There are a few with the name chassis. [10:12:25] done! [10:12:29] boom [10:12:30] lol [10:12:33] decision made! [10:12:39] productivity! [10:12:46] w000t [10:12:50] Ok, I'll rename it right now :-) [10:13:00] awesome, thanks scott_gonzalez [10:13:06] DONE! [10:13:06] https://github.com/jquery/css-chassis [10:13:20] WOO HOO! [10:13:31] exciting! [10:13:44] I can update the readme later, unless someone else wants to? [10:13:59] since it's currently referring to the project as CSS Framework [10:14:15] yeah we should try to purge any refrences to css-framework [10:14:27] There's probably a few places we need to update. [10:14:28] ill update my pr for the package.json and stuff too [10:14:40] Would be good to have someone go through and find them all and make updates today. [10:14:43] I'll create an issue for it [10:15:27] Could probably just tack it on to the existing naming issue. [10:15:42] And we can use the commit that updates everything as the trigger that closes that issue. [10:15:42] ohh, yeah, that might make sense [10:15:45] I'll add a note then [10:17:11] so if someone wants to tackle https://github.com/jquery/css-chassis/issues/14 that will be awesome, if not, I can do it tonight [10:17:51] i can do it [10:18:04] there are only 2 occurences [10:18:10] and i have to change more then that in my pr [10:18:15] so might as well do it at the same time [10:18:23] okay, that works [10:19:54] Okay so next up on the agenda is https://github.com/jquery/css-chassis/issues/1 [10:20:42] bringing this discussion into the meeting mostly because there seems to be a lot of discussion at this very moment about how we're going to do icons [10:21:37] (Ignoring the specific icon set at the moment, since the discussion has moved more to UNICODE vs SVG type icons [10:21:39] ) [10:22:57] I like the idea of using unicode glyphs but i have some concenrs [10:23:02] Is jslegers here at all? [10:23:21] I know he was a big proponent of using unicode [10:23:25] i dont think so dont see a similar name [10:24:49] Okay then, what were your concerns arschmitz? [10:25:22] well one thing for sure is i much prefer each icon to be its own span [10:25:41] not in the text node for a variety of technical reasons i mention in the issue comments [10:26:09] mostly to do with selection via javascript [10:27:12] beyond that there is if we care about the ability to use multiple colors gradients animations [10:27:33] and if we use the content css prop there are rendering bugs [10:28:06] (these animated svg icons are cool: http://livicons.com/) [10:28:28] yup [10:28:46] Does anyone else have any opinions on the matter? to argue for or against unicode icons? [10:28:56] im also not sure how we feel abour forcing people to copy and paste raw unicode if not in the content attribute [10:29:30] Our users will for sure not insert the characters themselves. [10:29:52] which rules out every possibility jslegers mentions execpt the one with rendering bugs [10:29:59] I know when I've done unicode stuff with font awesome, I use a cheat sheet [10:30:13] but that's mostly when I'm doing something on a photoshop file [10:30:27] and adding icons to a design [10:31:00] so does anyone think we should require devs to enter the unicode characters themselves? [10:31:36] i get the hesitation around ease of use, but to me having a robust icon set is good enough reason for me to read the docs on how to implement and follow suit [10:31:37] my argument against that - is if you're dealing with (for whatever reason) a non dev needs to be using the icons [10:31:45] because if we all agree this should be done via class then this eliminates many of the issues [10:32:05] but easier is also better, often :) [10:32:30] joebot01_: i dont think this affects the robustness of the icon set [10:32:35] just how its implemented [10:33:48] i didn't mean to say one way limits the scope of the icon set...just that a particularly robust icon set will offset any minor implementation pain [10:33:49] for me [10:33:59] ok gotcha [10:34:13] but you guys have broader support experience with a wider range of devs, so i know that influences you [10:34:26] in general robustness would favor svg since it allows multi color and animation [10:34:36] i tend to favor svg [10:34:43] also it would allow for custom icons [10:34:51] much easier to deal with *esp* for customizing [10:35:01] yup [10:35:04] which i almost always have to do, for that one outlyer [10:35:26] also our experience with support is that there are a lot of devices ( which we will support ) that have incomplete support [10:35:42] they do technically support but do not properly render [10:36:01] true (box box box) [10:36:10] so support tests say that font-icons work so they get applied [10:36:16] this is not the case with svg [10:36:45] and either case requires some JS to implement a proper fallback [10:38:50] joebot01_: its more then just that some times sizes are off our they get static [10:38:55] all sorts of weird ness [10:41:05] so it sounds like people are generally favoring svg is that the case? [10:41:19] my vote is for svg [10:41:27] +1 [10:41:36] It sounds that way. I mean, I would love to have other input, but since the other opinion isn't here . . [10:41:45] I give my +1 to SVG [10:42:07] yeah i mean im not dead set on svg it just seems like the choice that makes the most sense [10:43:49] Okay I'm going to skip Code Style Guide real quick just to check to see if anyone has any news on performance testing? [10:45:52] kborchers: did you get any response on that? [10:46:06] last news I heard was that kborchers talked to kristoferjoseph and brianleroux and they said they were going to be working on it [10:48:13] so i guess thats a no [10:48:21] guess so [10:48:34] i pinged Kristofer about something else last week and never heard back either [10:49:19] Okay then, on the naming conventions note, anyone who has any concerns about BEM, please write them down in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1mQTvgCPxwRvF7z4BgSEYaGaEwbK_9_Q9Ig_MMKEl-Ho/edit?usp=sharing [10:49:35] we're going to be trying to have that call later this week [10:51:08] Also, arschmitz has a pull request. I think he's going to add in the Chassis stuff while he does that? Anyone else have anything to say about the PR? [10:52:01] bigger question anyone mind if i force push master to fix an author name and avoid a mailmap? [10:52:29] since there is basicly nothing there yet i dont see a big issue there are only 4 commits and we just changed the name anyway [10:55:51] anyone? any concerns? [10:56:05] none here [10:57:04] okay, might as well then, arschmitz [10:59:28] Okay then, we're almost at 2 o'clock, the one thing left on the list is code style guide [10:59:59] I know I need to sit down at some point and finish writing up the html style guide for future contributors [11:00:11] the name of this is confusing to me when i think of a style guide i think of like the stuff on contribute.jquery.org [11:00:20] this seems like its more of a visual test page [11:00:41] Welcome to the joys of style guides, there are 3 different versions of them :-D [11:00:44] or am i confused even more then i thought? [11:00:53] the stuff we have on contribute, which is the code style guides [11:01:24] then stuff like the jquery brand guide, which is more of a graphic design style guide: http://brand.jquery.org/colors/#jquery-black [11:02:02] then you have the user interaction style guide, similar to http://getbootstrap.com/css/ (minus the code bits) that lets you quickly look over everything and make sure it looks right [11:02:16] ok gotcha im confusing this with the other issue https://github.com/jquery/css-chassis/issues/11 sorry [11:02:42] code style guide is exactly what i thought its number #11 that i found confusing [11:03:06] nope #11 is the code+visual I guess? together? [11:03:21] 11 i would think is just visual [11:03:32] and would be the third one you listed [11:03:42] well I meant, you need code for that particular style guide to work, but it's user interaction in general [11:04:01] ok [11:04:32] 1.) Just Design 2.) Just talking about how to code 3.) A page using the standards laid out in 1 + 2 [11:04:35] if that makes sense? [11:04:42] yes [11:04:56] Anyway, we can go more in depth next meeting [11:05:20] yeah we really just need to add scss rules i think [11:05:27] Definitely [11:05:51] and fill out the html one like you said [11:06:02] yup [11:06:03] Okay, i'm going to call the meeting over, and I'll see all of you same time, same place, next week!