Curious, how would I insert a page header colored background image? I would still like the title and description, plus login+ links there, but the background image to appear below those links. Would you recommend the php file and line location to add my image?

Thanks once again, Denis.

Cheers! Sherman

As for the styles vs templates vs themes issue, I'm savvy with a lot of stuff but still groping with php. My main gripe with themes is that the css isn't modular, and I have to hunt through a copy of a generated page to find out what something is called (div id or class) so I know what to change. Do all designers forget about the importance of degradability? Because some people still surf with css off. I don't want umpteen div ids that all basically say 'font-size: 11px;', I want to define 'small' as 'font-size: 11px;' and have umpteen instances of 'small' tags throughout the page, wherever needed.

Ok, end rant. :)

I think you nailed it :)

No taunt was intented in any way. ;)

What more, you and I are saying mostly the same thing, really. A modular design with a plugin architecture makes a software easier to maintain, and to be frank there are times where I wish some of the WordPress features were in fact plugins that I could disable and/or override more easily. Namely the template tags, which I find ill-designed. That to say, I see many good reasons to have a WordPress package around on the developers' end, with only a very limited selection of core files.

On the end-users' end, I think the standard WordPress package should be bloated by default. Not so much because bloated is better. Rather, because most users prefer to have a wysiwyg text editor, for instance, so it makes sense to include a wysiwyg plugin and to enable it by default in the distribution package. I think the geek should be the one who needs to press the disable button.

Thus, the only point where our views differ, if anything, is that I think the default package should be WordPress Fat, with WordPress Light as the developers' package; whereas it looks as if you'd rather see WordPress Light as the default package, with WordPress Fat as the user's package. It's a quite typical debate, if I may. ;)

I would hate to drag this into an open source usability flame war, so I'll simply say I mostly agree with your framing of the 'geek mentality' and disagree with your comments on GNOME.

I think the plugins you mention with regards to Firefox are good illustrations of my feelings towards WordPress. In my opinion the 'Disable targets for downloads' would be a good addition to the default feature set. It routes around buggy developer behavior to the benefit of the user. I think the ConQuery plugin is another matter. The features allowed by ConQuery are too similar (but not the same I admit) to those supported by the Firefox search box, but are hidden in a non-obvious location. AdBlock is a little ambiguous. With a better configuration interface I could see it being standard, but could also see objections in that it modified page content to an unacceptable degree.

Ok, to bring this back on topic… You and I disagree about which plugins would make good features for Firefox. We also disagree on what plugin features would make good built-in behaviors for WP. I feel like the WP devs should er on the side of simplicity except when the feature presents a significant usability improvement to the vast majority of WP users. This means WP needs to clearly define who its users are and ideally have a process in place for reviewing feature requests.

The geek mentality, I think, is not about having as many buttons as you can. It is about giving all users an option they shouldn't even have in the first place for the sake of letting a handful of nerds control what is going on.

Thus, I would qualify Gnome, which I find everything but impressive, is geek model driven rather than best default model driven. The Gnome devs are arguably doing a good job at making a pretty interface. But at the same time, and in spite of thier usability guidelines, they're doing a terrible job at making the interface user friendly. Namely, I am still handling packages and dependencies. And configuring a network device is hardly user friendly. Fact is, there should not even be configuration options. Gnome should take care of the configuration — including security based on context — by itself in all but the most horrendously difficult situations (_e.g._ it can't decide which screen resolution the user wants).

Firefox is better. It is the only open source software I know of that I would qualify as usable. Nonetheless, I find it disturbing that some basic features, such as 'Disable targets for downloads', 'AdBlock', or 'ConQuery', are only delivered as plugins. Moreover, the bookmark manager is enfuriatingly buggy — and lacking, when you're toying with exports and/or Live Bookmarks.